Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

OXFORD MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock the hon. member for Welland-Thorold was about to speak.

Mr. Nixon: For 10 minutes only.

Mr. Samis: Or so.

Mr. Swap: Mr. Speaker, we too, in this party will support this bill and probably do it within 10 minutes. But there are certain principles involved in this bill that should be referred to in the discussion here this evening, and I want to mention two or three of those.

The first principle is that this bill represents absolute and total withdrawal from the Hogg report. I think perhaps the minister would agree with me on that.

Back in 1972 Task Force Hydro brought in a recommendation that a hydro commission should be established at the regional level. The Hogg committee in 1974 in fact upheld that recommendation of the task force.

In 1975 the then Minister of Energy recommended a change in that major recommendation which he stated in his report on the Hogg report, after some consultation with various groups, and I read exactly: “The Hogg committee report notwithstanding, the minister may, after consultation with local authorities, direct that restructuring proceed on an area or a lower tier basis.” But it was very clear in the recommendation of the minister at that time it would either be one commission on a regional basis or one commission on the basis of municipal boundaries.

Then of course this year -- I believe it was on July 8, 1977 -- the present minister drew back from that and in his report to this House stated: “Where it is decided locally, as part of a regional overview, that a municipality cannot yet support a viable utility to serve all of its residents, then Ontario Hydro’s rural retail system may continue to serve those parts of that municipality which it now serves.”

The bill we have before us, Bill 111, for the restructured county of Oxford, certainly confirms that. The report of the local study group, of course, goes even further. It recommends that the local utility be permitted to expand as growth takes place around the individual communities.

I just want to say there may be some merit in the decision we have come to at this time. But it represents on the part of the government a pattern of backing off from programs which they initiate and commitments which they make. They are doing that now, we see, in the Robarts commission in the Toronto area. We all know how they backed off their refusal. In fact, they called an election last spring on the matter of a six per cent limit on rental increase and they backed off from that this year.

They’ve backed off on the municipal election date three or four times now under pressure from the municipalities after saying it couldn’t be changed. Over and over again, they said it couldn’t be changed, now they’ve moved it up at least to the second Monday of November and I suspect that this pattern will be followed on the matter of reassessment.

As I say, it may not be too serious to have come to this conclusion but I wonder why we went through all of those procedures first. I think it’s perfectly obvious that their policies haven’t been thought through properly when they were introduced. Moreover it has cost the taxpayers of this province a tremendous amount of money, this sort of not even experimentation, this idea of having exhaustive studies, and then ending up with things just the same as they were.

I will quote from the letter from one Taylor to another Taylor, the chairman of Hydro to the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor), back on June 20, 1977. It says: “However, in our view, the original objectives of improved cost effectiveness and fairness in the distribution of electricity across the province continue to be most important. Unless we can continue to work within a common set of guidelines and procedures, effective progress is unlikely and continuation of substantial expenditures on this function will not be warranted” -- and then it states -- “in excess of $1 million per year.”

I suggest that’s a pretty high price to pay in making a complete cycle, where you come back to the place that you started from in the policies.

The second point I want to make very briefly is that there was again a lack of consultation with the municipal associations in bringing in this bill. When the bill was tabled, the minister made these comments, and I quote from Hansard of November 25: “This legislation has been reviewed by the provincial steering committee, Ontario Hydro, TEIGA and the Ministry of Energy in consultation with the local study team, the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, and the provincial-municipal liaison committee. The provisions of the bill have been in general agreed upon by these groups.”

I want to state that as far as the PMLC and the MLC go there was no consultation and this wasn’t agreed upon by them. I suspect that the minister himself may not know this, but if he checks it out he will find that what I am saying is correct. There was 48 hours’ notice given to the MLC and the PMLC and AMO that the draft of this Bill 111 was going to be considered.

Mr. Nixon: The people in Oxford were the ones concerned, weren’t they?

Mr. Swart: They may have been the primary ones concerned, but the municipal associations have policies too -- general overall policies which they feel are for the benefit of local government. There have been promises made over and over again that they will be consulted on these matters, and they would like to be consulted and rightly so.

They were given 48 hours’ notice. They were not able to get a single elected person from either of the associations to meet for the discussion of this bill. Forty-eight hours later there was one staff person there as an observer. So I suggest that to say the provisions have in general been agreed upon by these groups is not fully accurate. They question certain things with regard to this bill and I think, perhaps rightly so.

One thing they question as a matter of principle is the continuation of the special purpose bodies. It is made clear in sections 2, 12 and 13 of this bill that there is going to be a continuation of the hydro commission apparently for an indefinite period. Even though all the studies that have been made recently by Robarts, Archer, and by Mayo in the Toronto, Niagara, Ottawa-Carleton areas, have recommended that special purpose bodies be gradually phased out, this seems to perpetuate it in fact in a firmer form -- I think the minister would agree -- than the two bills we dealt with in July.

As I see it -- and I hope the minister will comment on this when he rises -- although it provides the council may by July 1978 determine if they want to pass a bylaw to have the members of this committee appointed, apparently there is no reconsideration of that at any future time. In the Waterloo bill and in the Peel bill the option was left with the municipalities.

None of us objects to people in public office being elected, but the issue here is that if the minister had appointed committees and the provision was removed that they could not be a majority of the members of council, then in fact he could have a committee of council. There might be some very real merit in going this route. I would ask the minister if it really is the intention that once they have made this decision prior to 1978 it cannot be reconsidered in the future. My reading of the bill would indicate just that.

Those are the matters of concern that the municipal associations have with this bill. They are matters of concern that I also have. So what we really have before us, although we’re going to support it, is a bill which is a total retreat from the position taken by the government of this province in 1972, 1973 and 1974 with regard to the restructuring of Hydro. Again I say, it’s a retreat which in many respects may be desirable, but it’s a costly retreat nonetheless and a bill which does not have the full support of the municipal associations.

In the latter matter I say very sincerely to the minister that probably could have been achieved if he had taken a bit more time and had fuller consultation with the municipal associations. I think their objections are legitimate.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as you can well imagine, I support this bill. It comes as a real surprise, I’m sure, for the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, but in his comments he suggested that no adverse comments had come to his attention from the portion of the county he represents. I can say the same for the portion of Oxford that I represent. Certainly, my portion is by far the larger.

I think the reason is that the local study team took a very thorough, comprehensive and perhaps I might even say rather a long look at the proposals that were put forward by the various people concerned.

Mr. Martel: That was a pretty weak representation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m certainly not going to try to pre-empt the Minister of Energy’s comments on this particular bill and I won’t add to the debate to any degree, but I think would be wrong if I did not show some appreciation to the staff of the Ministry of Energy and to the legal counsel from the AG’s office for the attitude they took with the local people in coming to the positions they did. As a matter of fact, I took it upon myself to write to the legal counsel and suggest to her I thought she had used the most common sense of any civil servant I had seen in action in dealing with the local people and sometimes a member for Oxford. I want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that she did a particularly fine job.

[8:15]

I am a little concerned that the member for Welland-Thorold should talk about lack of consultation. It seems to me the most important area of consultation should be and should have been in the county of Oxford -- and that’s where it occurred. I am not for a moment suggesting the member doesn’t have the right to act as the critic but surely, as the critic of this ministry, he would accept that the place where consultation should have been at its best was in the local area and that’s precisely what happened.

Mr. Swart: What’s wrong with both places?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think that consultation has resulted in, yes, some deviations from the original intent of the Hogg report but so be it and so much the better for it. Surely to goodness we have come to a place in this province where we no longer think that justice must be dispensed in one hard and fast rule for all. It sounds like a great idea but if we are going to have real justice, I think the member is going to have to have some flexibility. This bill, I think, has treated Oxford in a rather unique way and in a way it deserves. Oxford has a unique form of government in this province and therefore I think it’s important that the bill does treat Oxford in that unique way.

Now I know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I could discuss that at --

Mr. Nixon: I didn’t want you to mislead the House in any way.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- some length. We have before and I won’t go back over that ground. May I conclude these very brief remarks by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister, that I feel that neither he nor the government have backed off one little bit on this bill. Instead, I would propose to you, sir, that what we have seen is a lot of common sense used to good advantage so that we have, yes, a different approach for Oxford county, a different approach I hope, that might be used in other areas.

I see nothing wrong with setting some rules for Oxford that will not be considered a precedent but are indeed fitting to the unique situation of Oxford. Then when we go to another area of this province we will change those rules and we won’t be in a position where it is said we have backed off, not at all. We have simply taken a very positive approach that fits the county, that does dispense justice, that is logical and I think that’s the most important thing when legislation of this sort is presented to this House.

I want to say in conclusion that I feel the minister has put forward a bill that reflects the interests, the desires and that does have the support of the citizens of Oxford county.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I say I appreciate very much the comments of the members, especially those of the member for Oxford, the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I think that’s a very common sense position to take, a very common sense position.

Mr. Germa: Is he your patsy?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think if you really examine the bill, the precedent has been taken in terms of the two previous bills that I introduced a little earlier. I would surmise that the next bill -- that may very well be the bill affecting the Welland area that the member for Welland-Thorold is so interested in -- may have to exercise some flexibility to accommodate the varying wishes and concerns of the citizens of that region.

Mr. Nixon: Check it out with the municipal association before you talk on that one.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I appreciate very much that we must establish rules and criteria, and I think it’s nice to have a master plan that one could apply universally across the province. I know the member for Welland-Thorold feels that imposition should be a single utility at the upper or regional tier in the regions.

Mr. Swart: No, no, no. The minister never heard me say that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Well, in the evolution of the minister’s remarks he has indicated the slippage, I almost surmised -- the deterioration of form from that ultimate regional concept to one of the lower tier and a closeness to the people.

What I have tried to do is to approach this matter in a very straightforward and commonsense way. Surely in a democratic system and in a province as vast as ours we must accommodate regional differences. We must accommodate the varying needs of the communities. That is why -- and I don’t apologize for this -- I have introduced further flexibility into those rules that were enunciated some time ago.

If one looks at the history of restructuring in this province, it has really taken years to accomplish anything at all in the way of legislation. I think we have to start to consider the views and to respect the views of the local people. That we have done; and I don’t call that backing off. I call that --

Mr. Epp: Facing the facts.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Exactly. I call that facing the facts, as the hon. member for Waterloo North has put it. Facing the people in those local communities and saying, “Here, who knows best? Do we know best in this Legislature for all of the people in Ontario?” I think we have to meet and discourse and communicate with the local citizens. That we have done. I think that is paramount. We have done that also, of course, in connection with the groups the member for Welland-Thorold mentioned earlier. That has been the process of consultation.

I may point out to the member for Welland-Thorold that there is provision in this bill to review the system within Oxford county within five years. That becomes a mandate. At that time, let him take another look. Let him look at the lower tier and the upper tier and analyse in the light of the circumstances at that time. If other changes are necessary to accommodate the people of that beautiful county then I think it would be the obligation of this Legislature to accommodate them.

I am delighted that what we have here is something that satisfies the local people in the county of Oxford.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

NEGLIGENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Baetz, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend the Negligence Act.

Mr. Baetz: I have just a very brief comment. I would like to state that when we go into committee I would like to move a very simple amendment to this bill which is simply intended to bring the effective date of this piece of legislation into step with, or to synchronize with, Bill 85 of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act.

It’s a very minor housekeeping kind of an amendment but I would like to serve notice at this time I will move this amendment when we go into committee.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to welcome the member for Ottawa West in one of his first forays into the realm of the legal niceties of the Negligence Act. He is moving an amendment which has struck even the lawyers as being somewhat weird in the application of negligence law in this province.

By and large the question of liability of the actions of one individual towards another individual within our society was based on the premise of negligence. That’s a principle from common law which has been enacted into certain statutes that has followed through over the years. But we got ourselves into a very interesting situation in this province pertaining to the question of the liability of a driver vis-à-vis a passenger of a motor vehicle -- what we call a gratuitous passenger.

We got stuck with this dictum called gross negligence. It wasn’t sufficient to have just ordinary negligence, but it was required that the gratuitous passenger be able to prove what was called gross negligence.

My colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, historian as he is and knowing the history and politics of this province, will be the one to give the historical perspective.

Mr. Nixon: You’d better do it, Albert.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s anxious to speak on this.

Mr. Roy: He’s anxious to speak on this and I’ve been begged to leave the historical perspective of how we got involved with gross negligence --

Mr. Nixon: Baloney.

Mr. Roy: -- so I will leave that to my colleague, who is very capable of doing it. I’m sure he’ll do it with his usual colour, vim and vigour --

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s going to speak next.

Mr. Roy: -- and will put forward to the House the historical perspective of how some former politicians, premiers of this province, got involved in this, so I’ll leave it in his very capable hands. I will ask all my colleagues in the House to prevail upon him -- I think it’s important that we hear this. Will the members, as I will, prevail upon him to give us the historical perspective?

Mr. Nixon: I do feel a speech coming on, but it’s got nothing to do with a gratuitous passenger.

Mr. Roy: It’s a very interesting story -- one that many of us who are short in years --

Mr. Nixon: And everything else.

Mr. Roy: -- and lacking the historical and political background of my colleague cannot talk about. But getting away from the historical perspective of this legislation --

Hon. W. Newman: I wish you would.

Mr. Roy: -- I just want to say that it became exceedingly difficult for the courts to interpret exactly what the heck was gross negligence. It’s tough enough to determine the question of liability based on the simple negligence aspect, Mr. Speaker, but what do you do when you have to add in the word “gross”? There were many cases involving different levels of negligence and more and more judges were intent on interpreting what “gross” meant in their own opinion. It depended on how sad the case was, or how much damage there was, or how serious the injuries were, that gave rise to the different levels of gross negligence --

Mr. Nixon: Gross, grosser and grossest.

Mr. Roy: -- to a point where basically it became meaningless. So I really think the general public, and people we are out there to serve, were becoming confused, as were we of the legal profession who serve the public. I want to say to my colleague --

Mr. Nixon: Humbly, humbly.

Mr. Roy: -- we realize fully that not only were the judges and the lawyers confused, but certainly the public were confused as to the meaning exactly of gross negligence. So we’re very pleased to see this amendment come forward. My colleague the member for Kitchener maybe will speak to this. As you can see, we have a lot of material to talk about.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What is he trying to do, rope all you guys in? Can’t you do your own stories?

Mr. Nixon: We are underemployed.

Mr. Roy: No, no, no. But we have our realms of responsibility and expertise --

Mr. Nixon: In an important bill like this, we assign it.

Mr. Roy: We realize that on this side and we limit ourselves to that particular expertise.

[8:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I hadn’t noticed.

Mr. Martel: The hon. member for Ottawa East wants us to know he’s here.

Mr. Foulds: It’s the one day a week he’s here.

Mr. Roy: I don’t have to tell anyone I’m here, I’m always welcome in this place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Both days a month.

Mr. Roy: I challenge some of my colleagues who are being cynical about my presence. If their constituents elected them with the enthusiasm of mine they’d be here as well.

Mr. Nixon: And you’d be lucky. You’d be lucky.

Mr. Roy: And you’d be lucky, no less.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are your clients enthusiastic?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Where did the hon. member for Ottawa East have dinner?

Mr. Roy: So, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. Martel: Does the hon. member for Ottawa East know what bill we are talking about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No.

Mr. Roy: Hopefully it is bringing commonsense back into the interpretation of negligence. It will have more conformity with all negligence. If there is a tort, as we call it, some liability from one individual to another, it should be based only on negligence, no matter whether he is a gratuitous passenger, or whether he happens to be a pedestrian, or whether he happens to be another individual in another motor vehicle or whatever.

Having said this we are pleased to support the legislation. My colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will talk about the historical perspective and then my colleague for Kitchener will be talking about his contribution on the committee to bring forward this recommendation to do away with the word “gross.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you going to refer to my contribution too?

Mr. Roy: I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that it’s funny to notice about the Premier (Mr. Davis), who is such a good politician, every time I use the word “gross” his ears twitch. He knows what I am talking about, of course, having done some negligence law, I am sure.

Mr. Nixon: Why should the Premier’s ears twitch when you say “gross”?

Mr. Roy: I don’t know. We are not talking about any scandals. We are not talking about the actions of the government on the other side.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s not worth it, I’m warning you.

Mr. Roy: We are talking about the standard of care required or the standard of negligence required by gratuitous passengers before they collected from the driver. But I say again, I am sure the Premier looks forward to having the historical perspective of this from my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that during the last few minutes we have been subjected to a gratuitous speech about gratuitous passengers. We rise to support the bill. My learned colleague from Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) tells me it is a good bill. I accept his word on that. It’s something this government should have done years ago. Why didn’t it? Now that it is finally doing it, we support it wholeheartedly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member is doing so well; he has said all that needs to be said in about one-tenth the time the hon. member for Ottawa East would need to say it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s right. I am only going to take another 30 seconds to put the one caveat we have.

I can understand why the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is not here to pilot this bill through the House, because it eradicates the concept of gross negligence. He was so insistent the word “gross” be included in Bill 59, An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and Other Family Relationships. I am sure the inconsistency must have struck him and he would find it too much to be here in the House tonight piloting this very good bill through the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not gross negligence. Gross negligence has nothing to do with family law.

Mr. Foulds: But he used gross misconduct.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to make a few brief but well chosen and much heralded remarks about the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Harold who?

Mr. Nixon: Well, Harold didn’t actually construct these for me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect to hear trumpets.

Mr. Nixon: I know the Premier would be interested in knowing that one of his predecessors, the 11th Premier, used to drive his own car. He used to drive all the way to St. Thomas after a gruelling week in the country’s and the people’s service. Actually all of the big green Chryslers the Conservatives had before 1934 had been auctioned off you may recall, Mr. Speaker. Those were days when you were a young Liberal, as recall. The Premier was driving his own car. I think it was a Hudson.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of personal privilege, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker. I mean, you can’t defend yourself.

Mr. Nixon: He doesn’t deny it though. He wouldn’t dare.

Mr. Foulds: But, of course on the Speaker’s behalf --

Mr. Breithaupt: You mean to say the Speaker was ever that young?

Mr. Foulds: -- he has been called many things but never so low a thing as a young Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Margaret was a young Tory.

Mr. Nixon: I cannot vouch for the youngness but I will tell you that Premier Hepburn happened to be driving over the King’s Highway and picked up a gratuitous passenger, sometimes known as a hitchhiker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are sure this is what happened?

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know what happened to the Premier, because I understand that he got into a small altercation with either a snowdrift or a fence post or another automobile -- that is not recorded.

Mr. Martel: It jumped in front of him, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: But there was some small degree of either injury or disturbance to the gratuitous passenger. I understand the passenger was a member of His Majesty’s Service in those days -- which was even more serious. Anyway when he realized who the driver of the car was he realized that perhaps his ship had come in after all, even though he was in the Air Force, and undertook to enter into a suit against the Premier of Ontario for negligence. Not gross or minor but just plain negligence.

The Premier was so outraged that he came back to the House and passed legislation that said that a gratuitous passenger could not enter into an action of any kind. He made it retroactive enough so that particular accident was covered --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Typical.

Mr. Nixon: As my colleague from Windsor says, “Those were the days when the Premier had guts.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, very good. He did that with succession duties, too, the retroactive part.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not guts -- gall.

Mr. Breithaupt: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that those were the days, as well, of a majority government.

It would appear from the comments made by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that this was indeed the history which brought this legislation before the House initially and which developed the whole matter of gross negligence. We now have the happy opportunity of returning the common law to a somewhat happier balance.

Mr. Nixon: They have had 35 years to fix it.

Mr. Breithaupt: It has taken some time, of course. It may have been that this particular item of legislation --

Mr. Nixon: The government’s first attempt was a fiasco.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- was not necessarily the greatest priority which Mr. Drew faced when he became Premier of the province. It may have not been important to Mr. Kennedy, or at that point to Mr. Frost or to Mr. Robarts. But we have the opportunity now --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure you it wasn’t mine.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in what is called the “fullness of time” --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It only took six and a half years.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- to have this priority brought before us --

Mr. Foulds: It is the seven-year itch, Bill, that’s all.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in the name of the Attorney General, but presumably because of the pressures upon the common wealth of the province that the Premier of the day no doubt feels.

This is a positive and useful reform which is long overdue. The matter of gross negligence has been most difficult to prove by any court. The end result has been that the standards for the passenger who happens to be a hitchhiker or someone just riding in the car have been entirely different from those of the person who has paid a fare, as in a taxi or in a bus. This guest passenger provision has been something which within Ontario has been a curious tradition in our law for these last 30 years or so.

Mr. Foulds: Curious, like Mitch Hepburn himself.

Mr. Breithaupt: At common law a driver was liable to his passenger for his ordinary negligence. This had been the standard of care within the province of Ontario until that time in 1935 when, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has suggested, the common law was altered. That altering as it took place meant that the gratuitous passenger was barred from bringing any action in negligence unless there was this peculiar concept of gross negligence.

Mr. Roy: You are talking about a Premier of the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: The courts have had difficulty with this --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t pick up any hitchhikers.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- but the Negligence Act was amended accordingly. As a result we have the legislation which has been part of the law of Ontario for these last 30 years or so.

Mr. Roy: I am always careful.

Mr. Breithaupt: Other jurisdictions have dealt with the problems in different ways. Quebec never had a provision like this. British Columbia had it for some years but repealed it in 1969. In the United States we are informed that one half of the states or thereabouts have this provision. But in both England and in Australia, following the tradition of the common law, the matter of simple negligence was used and continued to be used --

Mr. Foulds: First we got the historical perspective; now we’re getting the geographical perspective.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- as the standard for liability which a driver would have to a passenger whether gratuitous or not.

Mr. Martel: A filibuster of sorts.

Mr. Roy: No, you guys listen. We are giving you the whole background.

Mr. Foulds: Why are you filibustering this bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: As my colleague from Ottawa East has mentioned the involvement of the select committee on company law in its first report referred to this particular matter and dealt with the whole subject of the gratuitous passenger. The arguments which had been advanced as to why this should continue were based on the historic framework within the province. The point was that if the person hadn’t paid a fare to ride in the car, then of course he took the driver, the driver’s condition, the matter of negligence just the way he happened to find that situation. The loss had to be accepted, whether it was entered into voluntarily or not.

As a result, these arguments were rejected by the select committee on company law. The result was that since the insurance industry had developed a good amount of expertise in this particular subject and since this seemed to be in the best interests of the travelling public in the current situation, the view was that this approach should be changed. So the matter of the gratuitous passenger as a separate kind of negligence was rejected at that time. It was a part of Ontario law which had not had a particularly happy result in the courts, and had a tradition of some difficulty.

There is no reason to suppose that the relationships between owners and drivers of cars and their passengers, whether gratuitous or not, are going to lead to any kind of connivance which is going to allow for the encouragement of automobile accidents or the encouragement of claims by one against the other.

This provision, as I’ve mentioned, has had a difficult effect in Ontario courts because the whole theme of gross negligence has been very awkward in being proved. The courts have been able to develop a certain standard of common negligence and a standard of care, but this problem of gross negligence has been one which has not had a very happy tradition within the province. There has been difficulty in having a strong line of demarcation between the matter of gross negligence and simple negligence and the judges from time to time have had art occasion to refuse claims which may have been of some validity because of the difficulty in proving this particular point.

As a result, the select committee on company law last year, in its first report dealing with matters of automobile insurance, suggested that the whole situation of gross negligence was something which no longer had a value in up-to-date, current Ontario practice. It was thought that the return to the common law concept which had been continuously used in England and in Australia would be the best way to go and that the whole matter of simple negligence would be much easier to define and much easier to work with.

I must say that there has been not very much public demand for this particular change, but the demand has come from those who have been involved in dealing with the resolution of these problems -- from judges or lawyers or from those involved in the insurance industry.

The automobile owners, I’m sure, presume they are covered simply by their normal policies. They don’t think very much about whether their standards should be different depending on whether they are driving a member of their family or whether they happen to have picked up a hitchhiker who might or might not have a claim if there was an accident.

This whole situation has led to the need for a change, and as a result, this legislation has come forward. I would hope that other suggestions made by the select committee would be welcomed as openly and as promptly as this one has. However, we have this opportunity to change the Negligence Act and we are certainly pleased to see this legislation now brought forward.

The matter of gross negligence relates, as my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, to a particular situation in Ontario’s history, a situation of many years ago which, in effect, has been an aberration in the development of the common law and of the standards which have been extant throughout our society. I am pleased that this legislation has come forward and that it reflects to a degree the response which I believe was properly taken by the select committee on company law as it made the suggestion after the opportunity of reviewing this subject.

[8:45]

I commend the Attorney General for bringing forward these changes through the efforts of the member for Ottawa West, his parliamentary assistant, and we’re certainly pleased to support this bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I too endorse this amendment. I had the privilege of listening to former Chief Justice McRuer as he appeared before the committee, and I worked through him as he discussed the problems of judges dealing with this matter.

I suppose, however, that I should somehow issue a caveat to the Attorney General. I’m sorry he isn’t here because I wonder if he is prepared for what may be quite an increase in the cases before the courts, having in mind the family law package that is to be brought into effect in one form or another in the new year, since this, of course, extends the privileges of families, spouses and children, to sue in tortious acts as well as in others.

I felt perhaps it would be wise to at least engage in a discussion as to the implication of this, having in mind that family law package. Other than that I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who could do anything other than endorse the principle of the amendment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t intending to participate, but I never thought I’d ever have the opportunity to be involved in a debate to undo what some past Premier of the province of Ontario had done. That is all I have to contribute.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of both parties opposite for being so generous in their supportive comments on the wisdom of this proposed legislation which now appears, in the fullness of time, to be well on its way to becoming law.

I guess I should say, Mr. Speaker -- and I’m sure the members opposite are aware of this as well -- that the guest passenger provision itself was repealed by Bill 85, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, which was passed last month so in a sense we’re speaking on this subject somewhat post facto. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the support. It has made my first task in my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General a very easy one and a very pleasant one, and I hope it bodes well for the future.

Mr. Nixon: Your political past can be a bed of roses.

Hon. B. Stephenson: With just a thorn or two thrown in.

Mr. Baetz: Certainly I will take into consideration and will be discussing with the Attorney General, and I’m sure he will want me to, the caveat expressed by the hon. member for St. George about the possible increased case load.

Mr. Conway: I’m sure he’s talked about cabinet preferment, too, with his predecessor.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say except, as I indicated at the outset, there is a strictly housekeeping amendment to be introduced at the time when we go into committee which simply synchronizes the effective date of implementation of this particular Act, an Act to amend the Negligence Act, with the implementation of section 16 of Bill 85, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

NEGLIGENCE AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 94, An Act to amend the Negligence Act.

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Chairman, the amendment, is as I indicated earlier, simply a housekeeping amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Baetz moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:

“3. That this Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Mr. Baetz: Now section 3 which appeared in an Act to amend the Negligence Act simply said, “This Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent,” so we are simply trying to synchronize the effective date of implementation of both these Acts through this amendment.

There is nothing beyond that. There is certainly nothing clandestine about it at all. It is simply a housekeeping amendment.

Mr. Foulds: A point of order. I thought we had an agreement to distribute the amendments ahead of time.

Mr. Roy: We should have had this last Friday.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: Could we have copies now, simply for information?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. parliamentary assistant has pointed out this was to synchronize some dates with legislation passed some time ago, so it’s a fairly routine matter. But the point raised is a valid one. It should have been provided to you last Friday.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate we are getting that rule into force. I say to the House leader, I notice another amendment here we didn’t get last Friday, but--

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s called tit for tat. The amendment that that’s making reference to was not filed with the proper notice either, so we are even.

Mr. Martel: Do you have a scoreboard over there, Bob?

Mr. Roy: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will certainly endeavour to go along with that rule, which makes eminent good sense.

I want to say to the member for Ottawa West that I had some concern about this amendment, but following his persuasive argument here about its necessity, he has thoroughly convinced me. I want to congratulate him on what a job he’s doing in convincing us to accept this amendment. We will support it.

Mr. Conway: I think he’s better than Marion. He has all the niceties down.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly pleased to rise in support of this amendment and I appreciate getting the tat for whatever it was that was offered in the first place. Thank you very much.

Mr. Roy: He got the tat for Makarchuk’s tit.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 94, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, we are now going to do Bill 88, following which we will do Bill 98. I take it we could agree that if there are any votes in committee we might stack those votes until 10:15 p.m.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Resumption of the adjourned debate in committee of the whole House on Bill 88, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

On section 8:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: When we adjourned this debate we had in front of us an amendment by Mr. Makarchuk that subsection 7 of section 8 be deleted.

Mr. Conway: Do you remember that, Bob?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have very carefully considered the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brantford. While I understand the reasons for putting forth the amendment, its adoption as proposed would create a number of anomalies in the application of the legislation because of the manner and timing of the implementation of corresponding legislation at the federal level. I therefore propose to put forward an amendment in slightly different form in order to overcome these obstacles. This amendment will achieve exactly the same objectives as the original amendment proposed by the member for Brantford, therefore I would ask the member to withdraw his amendment.

Section 19(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), which is the section which embodies the disallowance of advertising expenses on foreign radio and television stations, came into force on September 22, 1976. However, it includes some rather complex transitional provisions. Where a corporation has entered into an agreement before January 23, 1975, the expenses of advertising are allowed. Where a corporation entered into an agreement between that date and September 22, 1976, the expenses are also allowed provided the contract does not extend beyond one year.

A proposed amendment to section 19(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) is contained in Bill C-11 which is presently before the House of Commons in Ottawa. This will have the effect of disallowing all advertising expense on foreign radio and television stations covered by this section after September 22, 1977, irrespective of whether they are incurred under a contract of earlier date.

The commencement and application provisions of Bill 88 are contained in section 27. The effect of this section, coupled with the amendment as proposed by the hon. member, is that section 19(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) would be made effective for the taxation years of corporations which end after the bill receives royal assent. Corporations would therefore be faced with a commencement date for this proposed change which is different from the date set out in the federal legislation. This, of course, is contrary to our aim of simplifying the legislation and I doubt if it is what the hon. member actually intended.

My proposed amendment will make a change to subsection 6 of section 27 of the bill, to make section 19(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) become effective for Ontario purposes with the same commencement and application dates as it would at the federal level when Bill C-11 becomes law. This will make the provision retroactive to September 22, 1976, for corporations which are not covered by a contract entered into before that date.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment, if the member for Brantford will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Foulds: As long as it is known as the Makarchuk Amendment we will accept that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will your amendment, Madam Minister, be to subsection 7?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, anomalies are excellent things in ore bodies and in prospectors’ prospectuses but in taxation and legislation I think anomalies certainly should be removed. Now that the minister has brought in a precisely-worded amendment which embodies the principle that we advocated in the bill, I am happy to withdraw my previous amendment to this Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moves that section 14(7) of the Act as set out in section 8 of the bill be struck out and that subsections 8 to 12 of the said section 14 be renumbered as subsections 7 to 11, respectively; and that the references to the said subsections in subsection 2 of the said section 14, subsection 1 of section 9 of the bill, subsection 4 of section 10 of the bill, section 13 of the bill, and subsections 1, 2 and 3 of section 27 of the bill be amended accordingly.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener further moves that section 27(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“6. The amendments to the Income Tax Act (Canada) made by,

(a) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, being chapter 106 of the Statutes of Canada, 1974, 1975, 1976; and

(b) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, being chapter 4 of the Statutes of Canada, 1976-77,

to sections of that Act which are by this Act made applicable for the purposes of the Corporations Tax Act, 1972, shall be deemed to have come into force for the purposes of the Corporations Tax Act, 1972, at the same time and to apply in the same manner as those amendments were brought into force and made applicable by the said Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada).

[9:00]

Mr. Conway: Couldn’t be simpler.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, fortunately this is one of the amendments where we didn’t need the seven-day notice or whatever; it’s so clear. Of course, to those of us on this side of the House who grasp these things in relation to taxation, it became obvious that this was the amendment necessary; and I want to apologize to the minister and certainly to my colleague from Brantford -- is it Brantford?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: The famous Liberal riding.

Mr. Conway: The name is Beckett.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t we think of having an amendment as simple as this one?

Mr. Makarchuk: You fellows don’t look after the indigenous capitalists; that’s all.

Mr. Roy: In any event, the amendment proposed the other evening and this amendment proposed by the minister are typical examples of democracy at its best and the role to be played by a responsible and informed opposition. We, of course, were very supportive of the principle of the bill, but I suspect that in putting forth this legislation there was some attempt by the minister to slide through this little subsection 7 of section 14 in the hope we wouldn’t notice it. My colleague from Brantford noticed it and the amendment, in our opinion, was a valid amendment.

As I said to my colleagues to my left, any time they propose a reasonable amendment --

Mr. Breithaupt: Which isn’t very often.

Mr. Roy: -- we on this side will support it, just as we’ll support a reasonable amendment from that side. So it’s an interesting experience in democracy --

Mr. Martel: The member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) didn’t think so.

Mr. Roy: We had the government House leader scrambling for a while the other evening. He showed himself again at his best by making all sorts of motions and moving for adjournment and things of this nature.

Mr. Makarchuk: He’s great for that. He used to be a signalman in the navy.

Mr. Conway: A two-handed Napoleon.

Mr. Roy: The thing that is interesting is that as a result of this small escapade we had the other evening, the government merited an editorial in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. The editorial is headed, “The Tories Scare Easily.” Interesting. It says: “An amusing but really not so funny sidelight of the broadcasting control issue has the Ontario government backing away from an attempt to counteract federal legislation intended to protect Canadian broadcasting interests.” And then it goes on.

My point is simply that we on this side felt it was the intent of the provincial legislation to try to match or jibe as much as possible with the federal legislation, and we saw no valid reason for allowing an exception under the provincial statute that was not allowed under the federal statute.

We asked the minister on that particular evening what the reason was for subsection 7. Some word was said about how it was going to affect the tourist industry or something was said about jobs. Basically, I understand the government’s concern. 1 can see the Treasurer saying, “We don’t want to give the impression that we are saying, ‘Yankee go home’ or something like that.” But, really, the damage had been done -- if there was any damage to be done -- by the federal legislation. It appeared to us a more sensible approach to have both pieces of legislation the same.

On page two of the minister’s statement it is stated: “This will have the effect of disallowing all advertising expense on foreign radio and television covered by this section after September 22, 1971.” Again, I would point out that the federal legislation, as I read it, and possibly I could be corrected, doesn’t prevent all advertising on foreign radio or on American radio and television stations. What is intended is that it will stop the advertising that is directed primarily to a market in Canada by a foreign broadcasting undertaking.

In this case obviously it affects American stations but American stations aiming primarily for a Canadian market. Let’s be clear about that. If some enterpriser wants to advertise for an American market on an American station there are no problems under this legislation.

We thought that the federal legislation was sensible. We thought the amendment as proposed by the member for Brantford was sensible and, of course, we took what we felt was a responsible approach. I am glad to see, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has accepted the amendment. Of course we understand that there may have been problems in getting the date straightened out, and again we are very supportive of clearing up any anomalies pertaining to the effective date.

So, we are very pleased to say that a responsible opposition looking closely at legislation has made a contribution which we feel is going to be in the best interests of the citizens that we serve.

Mr. Makarchuk: Just briefly I wish to say that in moving this amendment I certainly had it in mind the fact that instead of helping NBC and CBS we would be helping John Bassett and CTV.

Mr. Nixon: That must make you feel better.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, of course, that is from the frying plan into the fire I must admit. However, the principle that is inherent in this amendment is the fact that we are trying to establish Canadian identity, we are trying to encourage our broadcasting and our whole media industry and our publishing industry and everything else to grow. That is the small step that this Legislature has taken. Those are the kinds of small steps that should be expanded into larger steps --

Mr. Martel: In the whole economic field.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- in the whole economic field, in all of our fields of activity. These are the kinds of legislation we would like to see. I would like to point out to the minister that she is in control of a department where a lot of this legislation could encourage Canadian growth, Canadian development and Canadian industry through tax measures, but that isn’t being done. This is a minuscule effort in what is a very large field.

Mr. Breithaupt: As my colleague from Ottawa East has mentioned this change is a very welcome one and one which aligns Ontario’s legislation with the federal legislation. He referred to an editorial which appeared in my own local newspaper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, and which I think brought to the point the idea that this change was something which may not have been foreseen at the time, but which has proven to be something of value as the legislation becomes similar between the federal and the provincial governments.

Certainly, following the line of that editorial the legislation as we have had it would have allowed Canadian advertisers on US stations to claim these particular costs. This is something which I am glad to see the minister has changed in the interests of the people of Ontario and from a national point of view. Surely the approach which has been taken, not only by the member for Brantford but also by my colleague from Ottawa East, has been a positive one. The detailed amendment which the minister has proposed obviously shows careful thought and a desire to resolve this particular problem, and for that I give her a great amount of credit.

Tax legislation is always a very difficult sort of thing because of the view within our law that it is not illegal to avoid taxes, but it is to evade taxes. The avoidance of taxes because of loopholes or difficulties or inconsistencies in the legislation is something which we as legislators must always be mindful of. The minister has brought forward this amendment to resolve this particular problem.

Mr. Martel: No, the hon. member for Brantford did, come on. I just want to correct you on that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, I will.

Mr. Martel: Do it twice.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have already given credit once to the member for Brantford. I shall do so a second time if that is wanted.

Mr. Conway: He looks so unhealthy in the morning. He looks so unloved and unwanted over there.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister has brought forward a more involved and a more detailed amendment and that certainly is most worthwhile. The approach which has been taken has been to allow the tax legislation to be amended in a way that members on all sides of the House can agree.

We have found this consistency with federal legislation has a certain merit. The people dealing with these particular subjects are at least able to recognize the tax burdens. Now I agree that in view of some this particular consistency is said to be the “hobgoblin of small minds” but I think in tax legislation to know the results of certain patterns of action is a most important thing. Perhaps that “hobgoblinship” is something we can accept in this particular event.

The policy, of course, is indeed a controversial one because it still involves international interests and relationships between the government of Canada and the government of the United States. We recognize that many of our citizens on occasion prefer the availability of channels of television from the United States. As a result, this of course becomes a marketing problem and of interest to those in Canada who would advertise in order to benefit from the purchase of various goods and services within in our situation, particularly the province of Ontario.

I commend the minister for this kind of an amendment and I hope the resolution of this problem will assist in allowing persons to have a consistent point of view with respect to such tax matters.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple of questions on section 31 of the Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, dealing with the venture investment corporation. I see this is one of the sections that comes into effect on proclamation. Is it the minister’s intention not to proclaim this section until such time as the federal government comes in with similar legislation? I know that was one of the reasons why the legislation was not proceeded with when it was first suggested in 1974. The federal government did not seem willing to go along. So I would like to know whether this section will be more or less a “dead letter” until such time as the federal government comes along and puts in a similar 250 per cent allowance.

The other thing is I think in putting in grants of this sort we should realize that tax concessions of this kind are hidden grants. They are not something we vote in the Legislature, grant by grant. We never really see to whom or to what kind of industry they go. I think we should set up some sort of a monitoring and reporting system for large tax concessions of this sort so that people will know what they are subsidizing, because when you make a concession of this sort naturally the other taxpayers have to make up the difference in whatever revenue is needed.

In fact, if we knew to what the money went we could then judge whether whatever it costs us was worth the effort in terms of economic development, or whether the money could have been better spent by direct government investment in either industry of its own or in joint ventures in fields that would perhaps create more employment, more labour-intensive industries and that sort of thing. We would also know exactly what the tax concession costs if we had a system monitoring what kinds of firms got it and how much they got. I realize you want to preserve some confidentiality in your tax statistics, but I think some general statistics on the working of this section, as to what kind of ventures the money actually went into in the end would be very valuable.

[9:15]

I’d like to suggest that to the minister, and ask her about the federal co-operation.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Chairman, a number of the references to VICs in this bill will be proclaimed on January 1, when the Venture Investment Corporation Registration Act comes into force. They are tied specifically to that date for their commencement. I thank the member for her remarks, and I will review these for future consideration.

Ms. Bryden: I’m not quite clear from the minister’s response whether the actual 250 per cent tax concession will go into effect on January 1, 1978, regardless of whether the federal government parallels it or not.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: It will go into force regardless of what the federal government does, because it’s a bill which is operative in Ontario in its own right.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 88, as amended, reported.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on Bill 98, An Act to revise The Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would remind the hon. members that at a previous sitting we had an amendment on section 11 which was defeated. We started with section 11. We will now revert to section 1 of the bill, or thereafter. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this bill?

Mr. Ashe: So we’re starting on the same track and for the benefit of your calling the various sections, Mr. Chairman, I understand there are no amendments being proposed prior to section 9.

Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9;

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 9(1) of the bill be amended to read as follows; “Notwithstanding any other general or special Act and except where otherwise specifically provided in this Act the term of office of all offices, the election to which is governed by this Act, shall be three years commencing on the first day of December in an election year.”

Mr. Haggerty: And it costs you nothing.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, the reasons this party is recommending this particular amendment are various. It should be pointed out that this is an important amendment. For a number of years now, we’ve had two-year terms; prior to that we had three-year terms. In looking at the amendment we notice that over a 10-year period we would have three municipal elections rather than five. It is a saving of two elections, if you look at it from the standpoint of money the public would have to spend. When you consider that the money spent on an election is somewhere in the area of 50 cents to $1 per capita, that’s a considerable saving. At this time of restraint, when people are talking about saving money, that’s a point that should be considered. It’s not a major point, but it is a point nevertheless.

Mr. Conway: Isn’t it the same as provincial elections?

Mr. Epp: I think we should look at another point -- that the public has a number of elections to contend with. They have provincial elections, and they’re coming more frequently than they did a few years ago, for obvious reasons. A federal election is in the offing and we’ve had a considerable number of those in the last 10 or 15 years -- more than in the previous 15 years. The public is cognizant of the cost and I think this Legislature should be cognizant of it.

Another important point is the planning that goes into what councils do across the board. They’re much more complex now than they were a few years ago. Much more planning is needed from the beginning of one term to the end of that term. For a council to plan, to debate, to decide and to implement often takes longer than two years. We feel three years is a reasonable term for councils to have. Certainly, we wouldn’t go any higher than three years and we think two years is a little short.

For too long, municipalities have been regarded as junior partners with provinces and with the federal government. We feel this would enhance the municipal position and would put them in a more equitable position with the other political jurisdictions.

We note, of course, that Metro had a three-year term from 1986 to 1969 and 1969 to 1972. Both the public and the politicians in Metro were very favourably inclined to that. Ottawa-Carleton had a three-year term for at least one term and maybe two. They favoured that and they wanted to retain that but the provincial government didn’t listen very well. It certainly wasn’t very cognizant of their complaints, and decided to make it two years in order to have uniformity across the province. I don’t argue with uniformity. We feel that has a lot of merit but we feel that the uniformity should be on the side of a three-year term rather than a two-year term.

When we look at the budgets of the various jurisdictions we find that Metropolitan Toronto has a budget that is only exceeded by the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, by Canada itself, Alberta and BC. There are no other jurisdictions that have budgets larger than Metro Toronto, yet it is asked to have a two-year term when all the others have a four-year term -- and they can go as long as five-year terms.

I want to refer you to the Robarts report. You obviously have heard of this. I want to refer you to page 67. The Hon. Mr. Robarts recommended a number of things in that report, but one of the important recommendations that was endorsed by a great number of people was a recommendation for a three-year term. Mr. Robarts stated as follows, on page 61 of that report, referring to the general changes in the electoral system -- the term of office. He said:

“The passage of the Act has not stilled the debate about the appropriateness of the two-year term. A survey conducted by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in 1975 showed that while the councils of municipalities with less than 50,000 population indicated general satisfaction with the two-year term, responses from municipalities of that size or larger were evenly split on the question.

“Opinion within Metropolitan Toronto is more clear cut. All of the municipalities within the system who submitted briefs to the commission specifically requested a return to the three-year term and a vast majority of individual councillors expressed the same opinion. Among ratepayer organizations and individuals, a few favoured retention of the two-year term but most of those who commented on this question suggested a return to a longer term.”

That’s what the Hon. Mr. Robarts said, and I endorse that. I think that’s important. If we look at the report of Mr. Mayo who studied the Ottawa-Carleton region, he also recommended a three-year term. I think it’s important, too, that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario who have defeated the three-year term on previous occasions, on a motion last August voted in favour of the three-year term. So the pendulum obviously is swinging in that direction. If this Legislature wants to catch up with the wishes of the Ontario people -- certainly a majority of the public in Ontario -- then it will endorse the three-year term.

Another aspect that should be considered is that municipal elections will be considered by the public to be more important. I think if there’s a great frequency of elections, people tend to pay less attention to them. If, on the other hand, the elections come up every three years, they are going to regard them as more important -- as they do provincial and federal elections.

I had the opportunity of surveying a number of the provinces. Most of the provinces, half of them anyway, have three-year terms. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick all have three-year terms for municipal elections. I spoke to a person very close to the government in Alberta and he indicated that the municipalities in the province which have had two three-year terms -- they are in their second three-year term at present -- are very favourably inclined to that. Certainly there has been no indication among the public or the elected officials that they want to go back to a two-year term.

The same was true in Nova Scotia. They feel the three-year term is barely adequate. Rather than go to the four-year term, they have stayed with the three-year term. The public there is very satisfied that they are getting the kind of responsible leadership in the municipalities that they should have. There, the three-year term isn’t in any way proving to be detrimental to getting the kind of responsiveness and accountability that sometimes is given as a reason for not going to the three-year term.

In Saskatchewan, someone high in the provincial civil service told me its working very well and also cited the economy of having an election every three years. This person also felt that if you have elections every two years, there is certainly not a satisfactory opportunity, before the next term comas along, to correct the vagaries and ambiguities and so forth that sometimes develop between elections. With a three-year term, you have that time to make the correction in time for the next election. They also felt that planning, which is so important to municipalities these days, should be given a little more importance and a three-year term would help in that regard.

Manitoba also has a three-year term and they were quite pleased with it, as New Brunswick was. New Brunswick had a four-year term at one time back in 1967. They have gone to the three-year term which they say is working very well.

In moving this amendment, I want to point out to the hon. members of this House that we feel this is an important and a reasonable amendment. We feel it has the support of the people of Ontario and we ask for the support of the members on both sides of the House so that this amendment can pass and go into effect with the election in 1978.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which we have before us quite obviously has its pros and cons regarding the advantage of a two-year versus that of a three-year term. But we, in this party, think there are more cons than pros and therefore we will not be supporting the amendment which has been put forward by the member for Waterloo North.

It concerns me somewhat that it appears the Liberal Party is rather indifferent to the matter of reducing the opportunity for participation and accountability in local government.

[9:30]

Mr. Haggerty: The same thing would apply here.

Mr. Conway: Have you talked this over with Warner?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order!

Mr. Swart: This is not the only example we have had or will have with regard to this bill, of the Liberal Party reducing the opportunity to participate, and to vote against the October election day which would have permitted the ease of voting and participation, a system which would have made it much easier to get on the voters’ list and to participate in the election. They voted against that. They are obviously going to try to prevent British subjects, regardless of how long they have been here, from voting in the municipal elections.

Mr. Conway: You’re sucking and blowing at the same time.

Mr. Swart: Now they are proposing that there be a three-year term. There is no question that the three-year term does reduce accountability. The opportunity of anyone to be elected is cut in half. There can be no question about that. They can run every second year, now they will only be able to run every third year.

Mr. Mancini: Call him to order.

Mr. Swart: The opportunity of the voters, the accountability is cut in half. They have the opportunity now every two years to get rid of people on council they may not like, or the whole council. If this amendment is passed, they will only have the opportunity every three years. So there is no question about it, the accountability is cut in half.

Mr. Mancini: You should run every six months.

Mr. Swart: I like the comments that were made in this House some three weeks ago on the second reading of this bill, and I would like to read this out of Hansard, where it states, “As a municipal politician, I must say I always thought the three-year term was excellent, because it meant I didn’t have to go through an election in that one extra year.

“Viewing it objectively as a member of the Legislature, however, I can recognize the benefit of having two years in that the municipal level of politics, even in some of the larger municipalities, is different from the federal House and the provincial Legislature. Many of the decisions made are instant decisions and many of the changes made are somewhat radical changes at the local level, even taking into consideration the fact that the province has such great powers. They are the kind of changes that require the ratification or opinion of the electorate in terms of an election, and therefore I would be rather reluctant to see us move to the three-year term.

“I would find it rather distasteful if we are going to have an election Act, to have across the province the option of having a three- year or a two-year term. I would suggest in many municipalities it will be three years because of the self-interest of those of us who have served at that particular level. I know we always say it is for planning and financial purposes, but I am afraid that when it really comes down to it it’s the fact that people don’t want to face the electorate quote so often in municipal office.”

I hope the people on my right will realize that that speech was made in this House on November 15 by their own member for St. Catharines, before they had decided that there might be some good politics in going to this amendment for the three-year term.

Mr. Bradley: Why don’t you read your own speeches? Replying to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), I take the opposite view to the one you are taking tonight.

Mr. Swart: Local government is closer to the people, it ought to be closer to the people, and you will keep it that way more with a two-year term than you will with a three-year term. I assure you that if you move it further away with regional government -- and if there is any one group that has criticized regional government because it is too far from the people it is that group to the right. Now you want to give them a three-year term so they are only accountable two-thirds as often as they are at the present.

Mr. Conway: We will give you back to the Peninsula without any further consideration.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order!

Mr. Swart: I suspect their change of heart is because their research department found a resolution that had been passed by EMO which the member for Waterloo North has said stated that they favoured the three-year term. I was there when this matter was debated and when the vote was taken. I would suggest to them that they not get too excited about it, because the vote was almost even. I think there was a difference of something like 20 between those voting for and those voting against it.

Mr. Epp: That’s all one went by.

Mr. Swart: But I must say this with regard to their consideration -- and if they’re there, or even if they’re not, they should know this -- that the Liberals don’t really know the rural area of this province --

Mr. Breithaupt: You’ve got a lot of rural members to prove that!

Mr. Swart: If they did, they would know that --

Mr. Breithaupt: How many rural members do you have?

Mr. Swart: They know this to be true.

Mr. Conway: How many rural members are on your side?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. Order.

Mr. Swart: If they did, they would know very well that the rural municipalities in this province don’t want a three-year term. They want to shove it down their throats against their will, to have a three-year term out in the rural area --

Mr. Bradley: Where’s the member for Windsor-Sandwich when we need him?

Mr. Conway: Where’s Doug Moffat?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Swart: A number of years ago they used to point at this caucus when there was only a handful. But that has been changed too. And that trend will keep on in the years ahead and we’ll be joined ‘by many rural members --

Mr. Conway: Where’s Doc Godfrey?

Mr. Swart: -- especially if the Liberals keep on moving amendments like this, which is doing exactly what the rural people don’t want them to do. Everyone in that caucus knows it.

Mr. Conway: Is the member for Welland-Thorold running federally?

Mr. Breithaupt: Again?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Welland-Thorold forgets I have his old speeches about Highway 406 to read to the House.

Mr. Swart: Come ahead; read them. They’ll probably know, because there’s a lot of logic in it, that it’s not the hon. member’s.

Mr. Conway: Did you run against Humphrey Mitchell in 1942?

Mr. Swart: No, I didn’t run against him in 1942, but I ran the year after the old Liberal died.

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: There is another reason why I think it’s important that we continue with the two-year period, for the time being at least; that is, we have no political parties at the municipal level. I hasten to say that I support the principle of not having political parties at the municipal level.

Mr. Roy: Some of your colleagues don’t believe that.

Mr. Swart: My friend should listen well to my colleagues; it will be of advantage to him.

The absence of political parties at that level means that when people are elected to municipal councils, particularly in the larger areas, the electors are not as sure of what their policies are going to be or the kind of service they’re going to get -- although it’s true to say that many promises are not kept by political parties -- but they’re not as sure of the people they’re electing as they are if they elect them on a political party basis. Therefore, there is some reason there why there should be greater accountability and more frequency of that accountability back to the electorate.

I want to say too that it has been shown in those areas where they have an election only every three years, the bureaucrats have more control because they get to know the members of the council better and they can have more influence with the members of council than when they have two-year terms --

Mr. Conway: You might have been a puppet on a string, but the rest aren’t.

Mr. Swart: The same thing is very true of developers: they become more entrenched with the council the longer that the council is sitting there.

Mr. Conway: You might have been a puppet on a string, but some of us aren’t.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Conway: At least Ellis Morningstar was a man of the people.

Mr. Swart: The member for Waterloo North mentioned that the Robarts report had recommended a three-year term and so had the Mayo report. He neglected to mention the Archer report, the other report, which recommended a two-year term in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. Bradley: We’d rather forget that.

Mr. Conway: Is there anything the member doesn’t know?

Mr. Swart: He also mentioned the need for planning and for continuity of council; and, of course, there is some merit in these arguments. If a council is going to be there for a longer period of time, the councillors have the opportunity of planning. But any examination of municipal elections shows that only 20 to 25 per cent of a council that is in office is defeated at any one election. The average life-span of council members is in the neighbourhood of seven to eight years.

Mr. Conway: Do you remember Fred Burr’s old resolution proposing a mandatory two-year term for this place?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, would you stop the interjections, which are disturbing the House?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Would the member for Welland-Thorold please ignore the interjections and continue his remarks? And would the member for Renfrew North refrain, please?

Mr. Conway: He is ignoring the bill, he should ignore the interjections as well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, it’s already there to almost the same degree that it would be if we had three-year elections at the local level. We have to weigh the arguments on one side against the arguments on the other side. In this particular amendment, as in this whole Municipal Elections Act, our party is going to come down on the side of maximum participation by the electorate, and maximum accountability of the councils back to the electorate.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, I don’t normally get into a debate of this type. However, I would like to make one or two comments in regard to the Liberal amendment, particularly in section 9, subsection 1, when we are dealing with the length of the term of municipal councillors. Having experienced life on a municipal council, having experienced the three-year term, and recognizing the difficulty in gaining the experience you need prior to the election year, the third year, it was my experience that most people take most of a year to really know what is happening, to become a fully experienced councillor -- except for some of the newer members, generally of a New Democratic nature, who are instant experts as soon as they get there.

Mr. Swart: We do start ahead, all right.

Mr. Gregory: But some of us who are not take a little longer. I found the three-year term gives a better balance to members of council. My initial reaction is to urge the minister to consider this in future; I recognize the difficulties at the present time.

Mr. Roy: Vote with us.

Mr. Gregory: Some of the difficulties, of course, would be because it would not only mean municipal councils, it would also mean boards of education. There are certain areas where boards of education override municipal boundaries, and if it was made a local option then you’d have the difficulty of adjacent municipalities having different preferences as to two- or three-year terms. It wouldn’t really be workable for a school board that crossed both those boundaries. It has been my experience that a two-year term, particularly when you have municipal elections at rather odd times, as we have been having lately -- at least provincial elections --

Mr. Conway: With some pretty odd results, eh?

Mr. Gregory: Yes, and Lord knows we might have more before we know it. We are getting to the point, as my friend across the way has said --

Mr. Conway: Uncle Bill learned a sorry lesson on June 9. He won’t try that one again.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: Sean, if you don’t be quiet, I will never finish. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

Mr. Conway: I didn’t hear you.

Mr. Gregory: I was making the point that we are getting to the point where we are having elections almost every year, which I think is another reason for considering a longer term. The expense has to be considered.

Mr. Bradley: Come over and join us.

Mr. Gregory: For the community I come from, Mississauga, the cost of a municipal election is some $100,000. That is not counting the cost of the election for the individual candidates themselves. So I see a lot of merit to this. I certainly am not going to support the amendment of the Liberal Party, but I wanted it put on the record --

Mr. Ruston: You are not going to voice a vote?

Mr. Roy: Do you have any convictions or not?

Mr. Gregory: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.

Mr. Roy: Well, stand up for them.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Gregory: I have convictions. Not only do I see the merits in a three-year term, but I see the problems -- as I have just outlined if you took the trouble to listen. I see many problems in this. I would hope, as I said before, the minister will consider this in the very near future. If there is a desire to have uniform election periods across the province, perhaps we should be considering this in the future on the basis of population as opposed to numbers of municipalities. So with that, as I am saying, I will support the government position. I do so with some reservations in view of my experience as a municipal councillor.

[9:45]

Mr. Conway: I would speak briefly to the amendment in a supportive and positive way. I think something ought to be said, particularly about the comments from the member for Welland-Thorold, whose presentation of the so-called con position is, I think, a con in itself. I have not heard in this assembly for quite some time such a specious argumentation as I heard in that sense.

Mr. Swart: Read your speech in Hansard.

Mr. Conway: I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Welland-Thorold tell me that one of the reasons an extended term would be perhaps a very dangerous consideration is that it might allow the bureaucracy to be more manipulative of the elected officials. I think that says something for the kind of social democracy for which he may stand, but I certainly do not accept that as a fair comment on those very hardworking, fair-minded and democratically-oriented public servants who, I know, not only work in places like Renfrew county, but I am sure in his part of the Niagara region.

Mr. Roy: Even there.

Mr. Conway: I think he might want to reconsider the implication --

Mr. Mancini: Small guys.

Mr. Conway: -- if not the explication of that remark. To suggest to members of this assembly that a three-year term might give rise to an anti-democratic sentiment because the elected officials might have, by then, developed a “too-cozy” relationship --

An hon. member: Mel is chewing on his tongue, now.

Mr. Conway: -- with the senior or middle-range bureaucracy in that particular region --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you trust the people?

Mr. Conway: -- now I hear the member for Bellwoods, like the member for Welland-Thorold, talk about their party being the party that is really speaking for the people.

Mr. McClellan: You got it.

Mr. Conway: It is my observation that people generally are tired of elections. There are so many elections that some people are confused to the point where they will elect people like the hon. members for Bellwoods and Welland-Thorold.

Mr. McClellan: Can I quote you?

Mr. Conway: It is that kind of confusion and it is that kind of apathy and indifference which --

Mr. McClellan: Can I quote you on that?

Mr. Conway: -- I think is a serious comment on the present political culture.

Mr. McClellan: Can I quote you?

Mr. Conway: It is my observation that a three-year term would, in fact, under the conditions of this amendment, encourage a more active participation in the municipal process. I know the people in my area, many of whom have spoken very positively about some other changes in municipal elections in this province in the past number of weeks, feel very strongly that a three-year term would be an advantageous consideration.

I must say I am not one of those people who feels particularly strongly that the monetary consideration should, in fact, be a major one with respect to the timing of an election or the calling of an election or the frequency of an election.

Surely within the treasured democratic system that we have it is not particularly cogent to argue that because an election is going to cost money, as the hon. member for Mississauga East intimated in large areas like his own, it is a very costly venture. As we found out in May and June a provincial election can now cost as much as some $20-odd million --

Mr. Breithaupt: Or even $6 million a seat.

Mr. Roy: That is it. Talk about a waste.

Mr. Conway: But it seems to me that if an election has to occur --

Mr. Mancini: Lost your job?

Mr. Conway: -- particularly at the municipal level, then it should incur costs. I don’t agree that this kind of cynicism that gave us the provincial election in June --

Mr. Roy: A waste of taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Conway: -- is in any way commendable. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I feel cost should not be a total consideration.

Mr. Mancini: Six million dollars to give you a job.

Mr. Conway: I do think it may be a factor, but if an election is needed, then I think an election should take place. But I just wanted to put my strong personal objection to the suggestion or the implication that a three-year term would be undesirable because, in fact, it might allow, indeed encourage, a more manipulative relationship between a given bureaucracy at the municipal level and the elected officials there. I think that is specious, I think it is repugnant and it is something which I think is not to be considered in any positive way in this very useful amendment.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I think some members have with this bill is that the bill itself says a two-year term, period, and the amendment says a three-year term, period.

Mr. Haggerty: Very reasonable, I think.

Ms. Bryden: They both will apply to 850 municipalities uniformly across the province. Of course, this is what you have to do when you’re passing a Municipal Elections Act that applies to all 850 municipalities. But it does mean that we’re legislating one rule or the other for all 850 municipalities. There is no flexibility in it.

Mr. Roy: Suggest an amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Go catch your plane.

Ms. Bryden: We are legislating for rural municipalities, some of which have difficulty attracting candidates even for a one-year term.

Mr. Mancini: What rural riding are you speaking about?

Ms. Bryden: Also some rural municipalities have very little turnover so that no matter whether you have a two- or a three-year term you’ll probably have the same faces there year after year. Electoral costs can vary greatly according to the size of the municipality and this is a factor, of course, that influences people in deciding what is the most suitable term. The attraction of serving in elected office is also affected by the term, but again, the effect varies according to the size of the municipality. We don’t really know how much effect the difference in term has on the voting turnout in the different municipalities.

So I think we might consider how more flexibility could be brought about, whether it should be brought about by a further amendment to this bill or whether it should be brought about by legislation that affects individual municipalities. I’m referring to the special Acts that apply to the regions and those that apply to places like the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Perhaps that is the better route -- to deal with each large municipality on its merits -- since they are generally covered by separate Acts. If there is a case for a three-year term or a longer term for the larger municipalities, it could be dealt with in that way and we could see the effects by observing what happens if it is applied municipality by municipality.

I think that is the kind of flexibility that the government should be thinking about. When you look at the main arguments for the longer term, they do apply more to the larger municipalities. There are perhaps not more than a dozen of them that are large enough that the arguments appear to be more in favour of the longer term because of the greater complexity and the higher cost of elections and the greater difficulty in attracting candidates who can make it a full-time job.

So I’m not going to move an amendment. I think for the general legislation, we stick to the two-year term, but that we urge the government to consider a longer term in its regional municipal legislation for the larger municipalities.

Mr. Breithaupt: How about three years?

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 98, especially to sections 9 and 10 where my hon. colleague, the member for Waterloo North, has moved the amendment to have a three-year term for all of the local elections. I would like to say, having served on a local township council --

Mr. Roy: And served with honour.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you.

Mr. Roy: Just like he is doing in this place.

Mr. Conway: He knows what he’s talking about.

Mr. Mancini: I found that the two-year term was rather short. By the time you learned the work on your committee --

Mr. Handleman: A lot of slow learners over there.

Mr. Mancini: -- you were already moved to a different committee. I know that I could have used the extra year for the benefit of the people of the township that I served and not in any way compromise the principles of the office as the member for Welland-Thorold suggests.

I say to him I guess all the provincial governments of the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan who have had NDP governments didn’t care if their local politicians compromised their positions. I think you should be embarrassed to rise in this Legislature and make that kind of comment, because there are a lot of good municipal politicians who are working and serving in their office for little or no monetary gain. In southwestern Ontario where we have municipalities of anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 population, there is hardly any payment at all for the office. I don’t know what the hon. member for Welland-Thorold was trying to say. I can just say that once again he bad diarrhoea of the mouth.

Mr. Swart: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Foulds: Call him to order.

Mr. Mancini: I hope that the members of the House consider the three-year amendment. It is a good one. I’ve had the opportunity of speaking with some of my local officials in the Essex South area and they feel that it would be an asset to them in helping them serve the people of their area. I know that they’ve mentioned planning and attracting industrial development in their different areas. They feel that a three-year term would be beneficial to them in serving their constituents.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments about the question of a two- or three-year term. I can recall when the legislation was originally brought in, in 1971, establishing a two-year term. I think that at that time it reduced the term of a couple of regional municipalities in the province. I think it was Toronto and Ottawa which at that time had the three-year term reduced to the two-year term.

Mr. Haggerty: Erie too.

Mr. Roy: At that time I expressed serious reservations about this. Somehow we get the feeling in this House that because the municipalities are the creatures of the province we must continue being paternalistic towards the municipalities. I find it strange that the members to my left, especially the member for Welland-Thorold, talks about accountability. He says it’s better for purposes of accountability if they’re elected every two years. What kind of reasoning is that? If he really believes that, we who are further from the people at the provincial and federal level should have shorter terms.

Mr. Foulds: With minority government we do have.

Mr. Roy: You possibly do have. That is because you’re foolish enough to call elections when you shouldn’t be doing it. The member for Carleton should know that. In fact, that last election probably meant that you were no longer in cabinet. That was your big frustration.

Mr. Handleman: -- spent $25 million for nothing.

Interjections.

Mr. McNeil: You defeated us in the House. We had no choice.

Mr. Handleman: How long is this term?

Mr. Roy: As long as you smarten up and continue governing with good sense. We told you that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the member come back to the amendment?

Mr. Van Horne: Is seven months too long for you, Sid?

Mr. Roy: What were you saying, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Would the member come back to the amendment?

Mr. Roy: Oh, yes. Thank you.

Mr. Swart: It is not hard for him to go back. That is his direction.

Mr. Roy: The point is this, how can we who are under the BNA Act in any event, be allowed to govern with -- what is it? -- four or five years, and look down on the municipalities? How can we look down, for instance, on the mayor of Toronto, the mayor of Ottawa --

Mr. Mancini: The mayor of Windsor.

Mr. Roy: The reeve of Nepean, and say, “Andy, you’ve got to be more accountable. You’ve got to be elected.” Does he approve of that? I’m sure he does.

Mr. Conway: What about Aubrey Moodie?

Mr. Roy: Oh, Aubrey doesn’t like elections at all. But the point is, with municipalities of the size of many of our metropolitan centres, who are we to look at their locally elected people and say to them, “You must become more accountable”? We act like godfathers in this place.

[10:00]

Mr. Foulds: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Roy: Well, that’s what you are doing. That’s what the member for Welland-Thorold is saying to them.

Mr. Foulds: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Roy: He’s saying, “You have to be more responsible. You have to be elected more often.” You know, that’s really hogwash. How can you tell the mayor of Toronto, “We can stick around here for four years, but you have to be elected every two years because you have to become more accountable,” when there are regional councils and municipalities looking after the interests of over a million people -- does that make sense? It really doesn’t, and I think it’s time we got away from this.

I am really surprised the government would not see fit to accept this amendment. What concerns me is that certain members -- the member for Mississauga East, and I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine is leaning in that direction as well -- feel they have to follow the party line on this very sensible amendment. If they were serious about their convictions, they would support this amendment.

Mr. Swart: Do you think your member for St. Catharines will support your party line?

Mr. Roy: They say it should be more flexible. I think my colleague from Waterloo will explain that it’s difficult to have flexibility within this legislation. He will explain to you why it can’t be done, in such a way that even you will understand. I think you will understand that.

Mr. Swart: You better get some other --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, Robarts looked at this thoroughly and reviewed the situation, and says --

Mr. Swart: Haven’t you got any new material? You have been saying the same stuff for 10 years.

Mr. Roy: -- “In the view of the commission, arguments for a three-year term in Metropolitan Toronto are convincing.” I look at the Mayo report from the Ottawa area, and I read at page 119 from the Mayo report: “… all briefs received by this commission which commented on the term of office urged the extension of the present two-year term to three years.”

Mr. Swart: Get some new material. You are using what Epp used.

Mr. Roy: Some new material -- how new does he want this? One is October 1976 and the other one is June 1977. How much newer do you want it?

Serious reports have looked at this. As the member for Mississauga East said, the most compelling argument is the responsibility of the elected members for these large municipalities, who have to look at huge budgets, and who surely want long-term responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: What is wrong with democratic elections?

Mr. Roy: The most ironic part is that this government, this same government which has forced a two-year term on them, would have an election, for instance, in December -- at the time they forced the election on them. In other words, they are saying, “You must get elected more often, but we will assure that the least people possible vote.” That’s the approach you have.

It seems to me when you look at the voting turnout at the municipal level -- once there’s been an assessment by the electorate that they are satisfied with their council -- it is exceedingly low. Is there any suggestion by the two-year term we are going to up the turnout? Is the turnout going to be any better? When you are talking accountability, it’s misleading on the facts --

Mr. Swart: You’re the best incentive for a good turnout.

Mr. Roy: I am really surprised at that member. I understand he has run for a lot of elections.

Mr. Conway: He is running federally next.

Mr. Foulds: A point of order.

Mr. Roy: It’s not a point of order. I am sure it’s not a point of order.

Mr. Foulds: A point of privilege then.

Mr. Chairman: What’s your point of privilege?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the speaker has attributed motive. He has used the term “misleading facts” --

Mr. Roy: That true.

Mr. Foulds: -- with regard to other members of this House. That is unparliamentary and contrary to the standing orders. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. B. Newman: Carry on.

Mr. Roy: Well, sure, I will carry on.

Mr. Chairman: What was misleading?

Mr. Foulds: He used the phrase with regard to another member of this House -- that he was using misleading facts. That is unparliamentary and contrary to the standing orders of this House.

Mr. Roy: Oh, come on.

Mr. Foulds: Sit down until he makes his ruling, will you?

Mr. Eakins: Stop screaming.

Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member for Port Arthur that I, as Chairman, did not hear that. However, I am sure if the member for Ottawa East did say that, he will probably withdraw it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s if he’s here the day after he sees it in Hansard.

Mr. Breithaupt: In speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if the member for Ottawa East said anything he’s sorry for, he’s glad of it.

Mr. Swart: He’s that type, yes.

Mr. McClellan: He is permanently sorry; he is a sorry fellow.

Mr. Conway: My colleague really bothers the members to our left. I don’t know why.

Mr. Roy: Yes, somehow I seem to get on their nerves; and I don’t know what’s bothering their acting House leader this evening --

Mr. Conway: It’s the Cassidy leadership campaign; it’s going nowhere.

Mr. Roy: Is he supporting Cassidy?

Mr. Conway: The only one -- a rare bird.

Mr. Foulds: Would the member mind sticking to the amendment?

Mr. Roy: I can see his frustration, Mr. Chairman; nevertheless, I don’t recall having used the word. But in any event, let’s be clear on this; If I said that a member was deliberately misleading, that is unparliamentary. But if one is confused, as that member often is, and if I say that in a confused and undeliberate manner he is misleading, there is nothing improper in that; it’s used in the federal House --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, there is.

Mr. Roy: Of course, the member for Port Arthur wouldn’t know the difference anyway, but I suppose --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the amendment?

Mr. Swart: “Go back” is the phrase.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s just that I was so rudely interrupted by interjections which were not only confused but really didn’t make any sense.

Mr. Breithaupt: They were also misleading.

Mr. Roy: Yes, they were almost misleading. In fact, they were right in line with the member’s --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, did you hear that?

Mr. Roy: I said “almost misleading.” What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Ottawa East return to the amendment? I would like to inform the member for Port Arthur that the Chairman will try to rule on anything. If he wants to get into debate, he certainly can at a later date.

Mr. Conway: The young Stanley Knowles.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East will continue on the amendment.

Mr. Roy: If I may, I would like to complete my remarks --

Mr. McNeil: You said that before.

Mr. Roy: -- which I intended to do, Mr. Chairman, before I was so rudely interrupted by a man who didn’t know what he was talking about. In any event, I go back to the member for Welland-Thorold: You know, they make a good pair; between the NDP House leader and that member, I can see why they are confused.

In any event, I want to say that we on this side of the House believe seriously in our convictions. We believe in local autonomy. We believe that municipal people, locally elected and democratically elected, are competent. They don’t have to go back to the people every second year on the basis of accountability. These people, if the electorate doesn’t like what they are doing, it can vote them out just as well every three years as every two years. They are responsible people, democratically elected. We have faith in them, and our faith is represented by this amendment, and we support it.

Mr. Foulds: I hadn’t intended to enter into this debate, but the scurrilous attacks on my colleague from Welland-Thorold have moved me to raise the following points.

The previous two speakers have engaged in the characteristic argumentum ad hominem. Instead of speaking to the principle of the amendment, they have attacked the personality and the character of other members of this House. That, of course, is the easiest form of argument when one has no solid basis for one’s position.

Mr. Roy: That’s exactly what you were doing today in attacking my colleague.

Mr. Foulds: I would simply like to say that we support the two-year term because it provides for consistency across the province, and the uniform municipal election date across the province has been found to be useful and worthwhile in terms of people knowing when the elections are taking place.

Mr. Roy: What’s the difference between two years and three years? Let’s make it every year or every six months.

Mr. Foulds: Secondly, if there is an argument to be made for the large regional municipalities for a term longer than two years, the place to put that amendment is on the regional bills that govern those municipalities.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the arguments in terms of principle are solid and my colleague from Welland-Thorold has put those and, during his remarks, did not attack any other member; he simply spoke to the principle of the amendment. It would be useful, during the course of this debate, if we could stick to the principle of the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I will ignore the obfuscation that has been entered into by the member for Port Arthur, other than to say that one might presume that a common three-year term across the province would be every bit as equally available, and understandable to the people of Ontario, as would a two-year term.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you make it 10?

Mr. Breithaupt: The regularity of it is, I believe, indisputable.

Mr. Foulds: Make it 10; by that time they would forget what it was about.

Mr. Breithaupt: As a student and sometime teacher of political science subjects, I have always marvelled at the American system, which has called for, through the election to the Congress of the United States and to the House of Representatives particularly, a matter of two-year terms. This appears to be a common factor as well within the state legislatures, and as a result it has always struck me that American politicians have the burden of either getting over an election or getting ready for the next.

The result of this means, surely, that the ability of members of elected councils, in the American sense, has been somewhat compromised by this extreme electoral burden where the ongoing discussions of items that can be dealt with practically within a term, and can be looked at somewhat dispassionately and out of the burden of an election, is something which may be of interest to people in Ontario.

According to the federal and provincial constitutional backgrounds, we are in both instances elected for a term not to exceed five years. We’re well aware that in the ordinary practice elections come federally and provincially, usually in the fourth year of what would otherwise be a five-year term. That has been changed on occasion because of minority governments, but if you look back into the history of Ontario -- even the more recent 34-year-old history of the government opposite -- we find elections coming to pass in 1943 and then 1945; but then going on into a pattern latterly of 1955 and 1959, 1963 and 1967, 1971 and 1975. So that we are in a four-year cycle in the ordinary attitude that has taken place within the province. Ordinarily as well, as we look to federal elections, in 1945 and 1949 and 1953, and years later in more or less that same pattern.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to make municipal government a serious and responsible arena for public interest at the local level, then it is up to us to deal in that same proportion with the persons who seek office at the municipal level. I suggest to you that this amendment gives the opportunity of having a standard pattern of election across the province of Ontario. It allows, as a result, persons to plan the amount of time they may be prepared to serve as they offer themselves for election.

It also allows a certain saving in public funds, which can be balanced in the lesser number of elections, with the fact that the persons elected may be able to have the opportunity of serving for a somewhat longer and more balanced term. Obviously, if we were so minded that we wished to save completely the funds of a community, we might have an election every five or 10 or 15 years. That, of course, is not acceptable; we have to strike a reasonable balance, and I suggest that the three-year term is a reasonable balance to allow persons who are interested in municipal politics, to stand for election on the one hand, and on the other hand to allow for a reasonable expenditure of public funds as persons are prepared to come forward, and as the electorate is put to the choice of those persons who will represent them.

We have the opportunity of dealing equitably, across the province, with one common standard. It has been suggested in the reports which my colleague from Ottawa East had referred to, and in other reports that are available to the members of the House, that perhaps the larger municipalities were interested in a three-year term and the smaller municipalities were interested in a two-year term.

[10:15]

Of course, that generalization is as inaccurate fully as the approach that any generalization is inaccurate. But that seems to be the balance that has been brought forward by the elected representatives and those persons involved in municipal politics within the province.

We have suggested that the three-year term be common across the province. We think it would be awkward if certain of the larger municipalities -- shall we say Metropolitan Toronto or perhaps the city of Ottawa or Hamilton -- might have a three-year term while other municipalities have a two- year term. Therefore, on balance we think the three-year term would be of use across the province. It would balance the interest of those persons seeking election with the interest of municipal electors. It would also allow municipal councils, when elected, to have a serious point of view and a known term upon which to base the various plans and programs that would more likely come to fruition within that term than they do under the present two-year cycle.

I suggest this three-year approach is a reasonable and positive way of making municipal government more interesting to those who are elected, more interesting to those who cast their ballots and more useful as we devolve upon the municipalities more responsibility for the operation of their own communities.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I would hope we can deal with this particular item tonight, as we have many other amendments to deal with.

Speaking to the issue before us, the hon. member for Waterloo North, who proposed the amendment, I think was somewhat unfair in his suggestions as to accountability. I’m thinking in the context of accountability to whom. There are two ways you can look at accountability. Those who make the argument for the shorter term, whether they be within this body or outside, talk about accountability to the electorate per se, that is to say, the people who go in, whether it be once every second year or every third year, and cast their ballots. But the other way is, are we trying to be accountable, at this time in any event, to the majority of the elected representatives from throughout the province? I would suggest that is one area this particular amendment does not recognize.

I think it has been acknowledged -- it has been acknowledged by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at least, as the hon. members are well aware -- that there is no doubt a majority of the councils in the province of Ontario that favours at this time a two-year term. However -- and there is no denying this -- a minority of councils speaking for a majority of the population, if you can relate those two, do favour, at this time, a three-year term.

But I am sure that we have to think about not only the numbers of people they supposedly represent, but the number of elected people who are giving the message to us. I don’t think anybody can deny the numbers from across the province of various municipal councils that favour the two-year term. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, there was even some suggestions by some of the smaller rural municipalities that we should be returning to the one-year term, which I think would be, needless to say, a backward step.

Mr. Swart: They don’t understand those small municipalities.

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt also that we are talking about a significant size of population in the definition between the large and the small municipality -- 50,000 I think was used in one of the figures. I think you would agree that that is rather a significant-sized municipality within the province -- even within regional municipalities. There are many local municipalities within regions that do not have a population approaching 50,000 people and these are reorganized in nature.

Mr. Haggerty: But 50 per cent of those running for office are returned --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: -- 25 per cent by acclamation.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ashe: So?

Mr. Haggerty: I think we have to take that into consideration.

Mr. Ashe: I think also we have to recognize that if many of the people who are supporting the three-year term at this time feel so strongly -- and this has been put forward, that many of the people of Ontario favour a three-year term, although I personally do not feel, from the feedback we have been getting, that this is the case at all -- but if that is the case, the option is open to municipalities, and this is nothing new that they are quite within their rights to have an item on the ballot next year asking the people within their jurisdiction whether they favour a two-year or a three-year term. I would suggest that many municipalities that now purport to favour the three-year term would not take up that challenge because they are afraid of the consequences of what their electorate might tell them.

I’ll try to finish off very briefly so that hopefully we can deal with this item tonight. I think it is safe to say that we recognize, as has already been put forward, that there are differences within the province. There are major studies that are still being considered, that may end up showing there should be in certain circumstances three-year terms.

I don’t think it is quite as easily enacted as has been suggested, that we just arbitrarily make a change on some of the regional bills. Keep in mind that in many instances there are overlapping jurisdictions for school areas. These problems have to be worked out. We have had discussions with the Ministry of Education in this regard and hopefully that can be resolved in the future.

I personally, and I think this view is generally supported within the ministry, would foresee that this is not a definitive decision tonight that says there shall always be --

Mr. Roy: That is a problem with this government, it keeps vacillating.

Mr. Ashe: No, the big difference is that we react to the needs of the province and of the people as we perceive them, and as times change. That is one thing that you people don’t like to recognize and don’t like to do.

Mr. Conway: You realize you cost us six millions bucks; take it easy.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ashe: It is all right; some people feel they are worth it, some people do not.

Mr. Ruston: We know in this case.

Mr. Ashe: I would hope that in the future, it is quite conceivable and quite probable that we will be able to come up with some working situation that will allow recognition in the larger urban municipalities, including the predominantly urban regions, that there will be an option within regional areas or within a county area. I think this is what the people of Ontario would probably opt for. There is no doubt that that is what the municipal councils of Ontario opt for.

But I do not think it is practical to suggest that we go forward with that at this particular point in time. Many would suggest that it takes a new councillor a year to learn and then he is electioneering for a year. Let me tell you that if that is the case with the majority of new councillors I think that our municipalities are heading down the wrong road. I have found in most instances that this is not the case.

Mr. Roy: That’s it, “Father” Ashe, give them your blessing.

Mr. Ashe: Any new municipal councillor that is worth his weight in salt knows his job in three to six months. It may have taken you a year or two to learn your job, but for most people it does not.

Mr. Roy: That is your job.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order; the member for Durham West has the floor.

Mr. Roy: No wonder you are in trouble. What contempt.

Mr. Ashe: We are in trouble listening to you people sometimes, I agree.

Mr. Roy: Two minority governments; $20 million.

Mr. Warner: I hope the Treasurer doesn’t find out how you are butchering this bill; you are going to lose your job.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, would you please get order back so I can conclude my remarks?

Mr. Laughren: A good idea, carry on.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham West has the floor.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To just close this item, I think I would like to read into the record a very relevant editorial that I think says it all. It is an editorial from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record dated Thursday, November 24.

Mr. Breithaupt: An unimpeachable source.

Mr. Roy: Is that the one that says the Tories scare easy?

Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Chairman, this is headed up: “Old Arguments Don’t Stand Up for Three-Year Council Terms”.

Mr. Conway: There aren’t any Tories in Kitchener-Waterloo.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That’s a shame, it is Kitchener’s loss.

Mr. Ashe: “In 1972, when the Ontario government amended the Ontario Municipal Act to establish two-year terms of office for municipal councils, it had good reason for doing so.”

Mr. Eakins: Don’t forget that Kitchener-Waterloo is a waste land, a political waste land.

Mr. Ashe: “One year terms were hardly long enough for new council members to get their feet wet, to make what contributions they may have been able to make before having to face another election.”

Mr. Roy: Misguided.

Mr. Ashe: “Increased complexities of municipal government -- “

Mr. Haggerty: Time.

Mr. Ashe: “ -- made some difficulties even for experienced members and continuity, if not seriously threatened -- how often are wholesale changes made by voters -- was not always easy to sustain on a year to year basis.

“It was argued by supporters of a two-year term that a one-year term wasn’t a one-year term at all, because a council in office cannot commit a council not yet elected to any particular course of action. It was also generally agreed that annual elections were costly when compared with the benefits likely to accrue.

“The two-year term has effectively corrected the earlier weaknesses. It has given plenty of time for all but the more obtuse members of council to grasp the fundamentals of municipal government, and it has given voters enough time to reasonably assess the work of councillors and to build, if necessary, a campaign against those they feel are not worthy of continued support.

“However, as might have been expected, it wasn’t long before a movement was under way to encourage government to extend the term to three years. Some council members, it seems, are unable to grasp the fact that membership on a municipal council is a political post held at the whim of people they are elected to serve.”

Mr. Epp: You took that out of context.

Mr. Ashe: “As early as 1974, three-year advocates, using the same old arguments, tried to persuade the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to support the longer term.”

Mr. Van Horne: Did you make your mind up before you read that article or after?

Mr. Ashe: “They failed then, but the association came around in August, unable, we assume, to resist temptation.”

Mr. Bradley: Your friends in the regional council don’t agree.

Mr. Conway: Read the whole thing, George; don’t leave out selected parts.

Mr. Ashe: I shall read the whole thing. “Encouraged by association support as well as his party’s caucus, Herb Epp, Liberal MPP for Waterloo South -- “

Mr. Conway: Man of the people.

Mr. Ashe: “ -- and a former Waterloo mayor, this week recommended a one-year extension to the Legislature.

“But Epp and his supporters are wrong. The old arguments do not stand up this time.”

Mr. Ruston: I always find you do well if you don’t believe the papers.

Mr. Ashe: “There is sufficient continuity. The few new council members likely to come aboard after an election do have enough time to learn the ropes -- ”

Mr. Eakins: Did you have to read that to make your mind up, George?

Mr. Ashe: “ -- especially when there are so well-informed municipal employees ready to assist in the learning process. And two-year election costs are not exorbitant when weighed against the disadvantages of three-year terms.”

Mr. Ruston: We know you can read a little bit.

Mr. Ashe: “If greater security is what the three-year proponents are after, they have to be reminded that security is not an acceptable political standard.”

Mr. Bradley: What are you going to say when you change it to three years?

Mr. Ashe: “it is rather the degree of insecurity that helps keep politicians’ noses to the grindstone. Voters should not have to wait three years to make needed changes -- “

Mr. Haggerty: You won’t be here.

Mr. Ashe: “ -- when the need is often evident in half that time. A three-year term is entirely too comfortable, one almost certain to give way to laziness, if not to putting off until an election year that which should be done today.”

Mr. Eakins: You were in Bill’s wind-up room this morning.

Mr. Roy: That’s what Billy Davis said.

Mr. Ashe: “Parkinson’s Law warns us of that. All work expands to fill the time allotted to it.”

Mr. Conway: Did he say anything about 34 years?

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I think that editorial speaks for itself.

Mr. Conway: The question is, do you?

Mr. Warner: What a dismal performance.

Mr. Chairman: Is there further discussion?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I think that certainly we have the opportunity of dealing with editorials from time to time.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. What did this one say?

Mr. Breithaupt: Earlier this evening, from my local newspaper, I must say I favoured one of their views. This one I don’t agree with.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. it is now 10:30. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Breithaupt: The committee might rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are we finished with the discussion? We could at least have the vote, couldn’t we? Let’s have the vote.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think we could at least place the vote, to be stacked then, so that this matter is completed.

Mr. Chairman: I see the member for Waterloo North on his feet.

Mr. Epp: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were going to deprive me of my accountability here. I want to make a few comments with respect to this.

Interjections.

Mr. Epp: Five or ten minutes. I could wait until Thursday.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, I’ll ask for the comments of the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, if in fact there’s more discussion on this, fine; I thought that since the parliamentary assistant had carried through on the matter that all the discussion was completed.

Mr. Roy: We had too.

Mr. Conway: No, he just dived in uninvited.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If that’s not the case, then I would --

Mr. Roy: He was too provocative.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: If there is more to be said on this amendment, we should do it another day.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the committee of the whole House reported two bills with amendments.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 94, An Act to amend the Negligence Act.

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 28, a motion for adjournment is deemed to have been made. I will hear the hon. member for Port Arthur for up to five minutes.

Mr. Roy: Oh, let’s get out of here.

ACTIVITIES OF OPP

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are three possibilities regarding the OPP security force’s surveillance of the October 14 demonstrations in 1976. One, it’s a comic opera force looking for work and had nothing better to do on that date in Toronto and in Thunder Bay; or two, it’s a sinister force looking for subversives in every legitimate protest; or three, it’s an incompetent combination of the two.

What is clear is that the minister probably doesn’t know, and what is shocking is that he appears not to want to know, what is going on in his own ministry, especially in the security branch of the OPP. Frankly, the branch appears completely out of control, operating on its own with no reference to the minister. What is even more worrying is the sheer hit or miss nature of the operation; or is it sheer incompetence?

The minister said, in his reply of December 2 that two plainclothes officers were stationed at the Ontario Legislature. One was a chief inspector whose duty was to supervise the Ontario Government Protective Service. He normally attends at the Parliament buildings when any demonstration occurs there. The second member was assigned to plainclothes duty to ascertain if any breaches of the peace were planned or intended. The minister went on in his reply:

“The member of the Thunder Bay unit was at the Thunder Bay demonstration as a function of his normal plainclothes duties and as a member of the security branch. Thunder Bay was not singled out when there were demonstrations throughout the province. It is simply a matter of number of personnel. The security branch of the Ontario Provincial Police has members stationed at Toronto, Windsor, Kenora, Kingston and Thunder Bay.

“No information was received concerning possible demonstrations in any of the other locations, so only the officer in Thunder Bay was assigned to monitoring the demonstration there.”

What nonsense; what incompetence. It was well known throughout the community, it was well known in the media, that there were to be demonstrations in Kingston and Windsor, for example. Why did the officers there not see fit to report and supervise those demonstrations? Were they sensible enough to see that they were legitimate demonstrations and not in need of this kind of surveillance?

The detailed description in the minister’s own estimates of the security branch says: “This branch was established to provide continuing protection against threats or actions by subversive elements, thereby maintaining public order.”

Well who were the suspected subversives? Why only in Toronto and Thunder Bay; why not in Kingston and Windsor? Doesn’t the minister find that inconsistent?

Even more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, are the minister’s comments to the press, as reported in the Toronto Star of Saturday:

“Plainclothes Ontario Provincial Police routinely attend public demonstrations where they eavesdrop on conversations in search of agitators, Solicitor General John MacBeth revealed yesterday. So much police work is done by listening and reports, whether it’s a football game or whatever. There may be agitators around, he said in an interview.”

Mr. Conway: And socialists to boot.

Mr. Foulds: “I’d be surprised if they didn’t have a few people at the Santa Claus Parade, he said.”

Mr. Warner: Spying on the Santa Claus parade -- that’s sick.

Mr. Foulds: I find that ridiculous, if not worrying. I mean, what is it about Santa Claus that would attract subversives? Is it because he wears a red suit? Because he has long hair and a beard? Because he gives away things? Or is it because he comes from the North Pole and is in close proximity to Russia? It betrays a misunderstanding by the minister of the use of police. It’s just crazy to have that kind of surveillance of the Santa Claus parade.

The minister has given answers reluctantly, piecemeal and incompletely over the last number of weeks. He has not answered the fundamental question of why these plainclothes people could keep the peace when uniformed municipal police officers on duty couldn’t. The explanations just don’t hold up.

In conclusion, in these times of economic insecurity it is not popular for a politician to question the use of security personnel, either RCMP or OPP, but surely to goodness as public figures we must support the right of free assembly to protest publicly either real or imagined wrongs. Surely we don’t need internal security forces eavesdropping on our own citizens in their right to demonstrate and protest. To misuse the OPP this way is an invasion of privacy and an intimidation of the right to dissent.

The Solicitor General must either be much more specific about what these officers were doing, why they were required and when and how they may be used in the future, or he had better get them out of the job of spying on our own citizens. The Solicitor General has a responsibility to protect our liberties as well as a responsibility to keep the peace.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Conway: Is the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) the deputy leader?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: He would make a good one.

Mr. Warner: As soon as you can wake him up.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If there is any comic opera in this matter, it’s the member for Port Arthur in the way he tries to present a very natural police function as some sort of sinister plot.

Mr. McClellan: What’s so natural about police work?

Ms. Gigantes: Do you mean natural as created by God?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Anybody engaged in police work knows that one of the best ways to do it is not to wait until some breach of the peace has taken place but to try to prevent that. Any good police force has a number of plainclothes people circulating at any time a crowd gathers. I tried to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the situation the member for Port Arthur was suggesting by pointing to the fact that they do have plainclothes people at parades, even such as the Santa Claus parade. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that the OPP had people at such parades but the local police force probably would have them there.

Ms. Gigantes: Not in plain clothes.

Mr. Davidson: Uniformed officers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Regrettably, there are a number of people in this province who are looking for occasions to cause trouble. Whether it’s the Labour Day parade, the Santa Claus parade, a football game or any other kind of function, if they think they can disturb the peace, they will. That doesn’t mean they are in any way attached to any of those movements that I have suggested.

Ms. Gigantes: What about the Kinsmen? Are you spying on Kinsmen?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are people that just like to cause trouble for anybody at any time. The police know who these people are, and it’s surprising the gatherings that they see the same faces at, even though they have no connection with those causes --

Mr. McClellan: Every Santa Claus parade in Ontario -- I know.

Mr. Davidson: Chamber of commerce dinners.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- and very often they recognize the police as well --

Ms. Gigantes: It would help if they had their uniforms on, wouldn’t it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- so just by the fact that those plainclothes people are there, it often prevents problems from arising.

Mr. Davidson: How can you call that prevention?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As I say, this is purely preventative policing. It is regarded as necessary in all forces; it is a duty the police have, Mr. Speaker, and I think they will continue to perform that duty.

Mr. Warner: The government is paranoid.

Mr. Breithaupt: There were even some police at Joe Clark’s dinner.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain for up to five minutes.

EMBASSY MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Charlton: I have to start out by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am very disappointed in the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) and his ministry. It is over a month now since I raised in estimates the issue of Embassy Management Limited, and I explained to him at that time, and to the deputy minister, that I had received a number of complaints from a number of subcontractors who had worked for Embassy Management on government contracts, that they had not been paid, in some cases, for up to a year. The minister and his deputy at that time informed me, and probably rightly so, that there was no action they could take against Embassy unless there were convictions against Embassy, confirming or demonstrating in law Embassy’s bad record and bad business practice in their payment of subcontractors.

I accepted that statement at that time, a month ago, but at the same time the subcontractors who had talked to me had also talked to the ministry, talked to the minister and the deputy minister. They had made the minister and his deputy aware of some 13, I believe, outstanding legal actions against Embassy Management Limited. They had also suggested, I believe, that they felt there were probably some convictions already, somewhere on the books.

My concern here, Mr. Speaker, is that in over a month, with the weight of probability, in the light of 13 outstanding legal actions against Embassy, the minister and the ministry did nothing to check out whether in fact there were already some executions against Embassy.

Myself and one of the subcontractors who spoke to the ministry, took the time to check a few of the local court-houses and registry offices around the Toronto area and came up with a number of already existing executions against Embassy. Those executions were available to the ministry, if they had wanted to take the time and have the concern over the complaints they had been receiving about this contractor on government contracts; but they didn’t take the time and they didn’t get the information.

Ms. Gigantes: The police are too busy out spying on the parades.

Mr. Charlton: This type of attitude on the part of the ministry, this attitude of just sitting back and waiting and hoping that somebody is going to walk in and hand them the goods, just isn’t good enough. It is in fact a black eye on the government of this province.

Mr. Davidson: The man in the Santa Claus suit disappeared.

Mr. Charlton: How can anyone have faith in a government which is made aware this kind of abuse of the expenditure of public funds on the part of a contractor hired by the government of this province, and have the ministry involved sit back and hope that the whole thing will work itself out?

Mr. Davidson: It is known as graft.

Mr. Charlton: Just before the adjournment tonight, I went over to the minister and I handed him two executions against Embassy Management. One of those executions was from an action by a subcontractor on a government contract and it was for nonpayment of that subcontractor. The second execution against Embassy Management was by Embassy’s ex legal firm, who had to in turn sue Embassy themselves for non-payment of bills.

Mr. Conway: Goodman and Goodman?

Mr. Charlton: I also informed the minister, although I don’t have printed documentation of this, I informed the minister that I believe if he goes to the registry office or the court-house in Parry Sound he will be able to get documentation of another execution against Embassy Management by a subcontractor from the Parry Sound area, also on a government contract.

Most of the subcontractors who have been involved with Embassy Management, most of the subcontractors involved in the 13 outstanding suits that I know of, are small contractors. They are hurting because they haven’t been paid by Embassy Management. One of those subcontractors is on the verge of bankruptcy; there are wages unpaid and bills unpaid to suppliers.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of all the evidence that exists and all the accusations that have been made, that this minister and this ministry have an obligation to the people of this province, to this House, that this minister should demand of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations an investigation under the Business Practices Act of this company, Embassy Management Limited.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Conway: Frank Drea is the only one over there who knows anything.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member brought to my attention two executions against Embassy Management Limited, of which I personally was not aware of. I did tell the member during estimates that we would attempt to substantiate what we felt were unfair practices in order that we could deal appropriately with Embassy Management Limited.

Mr. Davidson: You’ve got a bigger staff than he’s got.

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. McCague: Some things were brought to our attention.

The member asked me to guarantee that there would be no further contracts signed. I did mention at estimates time that I didn’t intend to sign any more contracts unless legally obliged to, and I have not signed any more contracts since that time with Embassy Management.

Mr. Conway: Pray tell why.

Hon. Mr McCague: The member is asking if I would refer the matter to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman). I’m not sure, to the hon. member, whether I have the right to do that. I have discussed that with the minister.

It would be helpful, I think, if the people who do find themselves in a difficult position would ask the minister to do that, and he has assured me that he’d be glad to look into it under the Business Practices Act. So if the member would agree to ask those for whom he is speaking and whose names he mentioned this afternoon, to ask the minister to do an investigation, I’m sure that he would be glad to do it.

Ms. Gigantes: Bring in an un-uniformed OPP man.

Mr. Speaker: That disposes of the matter.

The House adjourned at 10:47 p.m.