Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the regular business of the House, I would like to take this opportunity to make this statement to all honourable members.

This year, as we approach the Christmas season and turn our thoughts to giving gifts to families and friends, I know that all will feel an awareness of the wider world family and its need. Therefore, it would seem particularly appropriate that the Legislative Assembly as a whole demonstrate that we are ready to sacrifice some of our Christmas pleasures to help those whose lives hang so precariously in the balance.

In order to reflect this heartfelt concern, I have decided that instead of spending funds on the Speaker's Christmas party, which traditionally takes place each year, these funds should be forwarded to one of the major international relief agencies to send assistance to Ethiopia.

I am well aware that many hundreds of people have come to enjoy the Speaker's party, families and friends as well as members and, more important, those employed in the Legislative Building. However, I am confident that all will respond to this tangible expression of our concern.

Accordingly, I am directing that a sum of $10,000 be forwarded to UNICEF Canada, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, and be designated for the purchase of food and blankets for Ethiopian relief and that this donation be made on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I for one appreciate the very sensitive and commonsense comments you have made. Certainly I, along with my colleagues, join in support of the position you have taken with respect to this very urgent need.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 the Niagara River Toxics Committee was formed to find out what chemicals were in the Niagara River, where they came from and what should be done to control them. The committee was composed of representatives from my ministry, Environment Canada, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

This morning the committee released the results of its three-year study.

First of all, I want to extend to the members of the committee our appreciation. Not only is the thorough research by the committee testimony to the merits of co-operation for our common interests, but also it has given us invaluable knowledge upon which we can base future actions.

The report states that contamination of the Niagara River comes from both industries and landfill sites along the waterway. Eighty-nine per cent of the priority pollutants from municipal and industrial plants comes from the United States side of the border and 11 per cent from the Canadian side of the border.

Ten facilities were singled out as being responsible for 90 per cent of the pollutants traced to specific industrial and municipal point sources. Nine of the 10 are on the US side. The one cited on the Canadian side is Atlas Steels company in Welland. Recognizing that the data for the report were collected in 1981 and 1982, I want to share with the honourable members the actions Ontario has already taken in the past three years with respect to the Atlas Steels plant.

The plant was put under control orders by my ministry and, with the installation of pollution abatement equipment costing $10 million, has reduced its discharge of heavy metals by 85 per cent. My ministry is monitoring the remaining discharges to ensure continued compliance and to determine whether future action may be required.

In addition to the industrial sources of pollution, the Niagara River Toxics Committee report dealt with waste sites on both sides of the border. As members know, my ministry has intervened in the United States to press for adequate cleanup measures of such chemical dumps as Hyde Park and the S area site.

I believe it is important to point out that for Ontario a broader definition was used in the search for possible problem waste sites. The Americans considered only known or suspected toxic waste sites within three miles of the Niagara River. In Ontario we evaluated all waste sites within the entire drainage basins of the Niagara and Welland rivers, whether or not the sites contained hazardous wastes.

The NRTC report singled out 61 waste sites on the US side and only five in Ontario as having significant potential to affect the Niagara River. The five Canadian landfill sites identified in the report are: 1. Cyanamid Co. of Canada's waste storage area at Niagara Falls; 2. Cyanamid's waste site at its Welland fertilizer factory; 3. The Atlas Steels waste site in Welland; 4. The Fort Erie municipal waste site; and 5. The Canadian National Railways waste site in Niagara Falls.

Again, the identification of these sites as being potential problem areas was based on studies carried out some three years ago. In the cases of Atlas Steels and Cyanamid Welland, respectively, remedial actions have been taken under a control order and by agreement after successful prosecution. In the others, my ministry has undertaken investigations, including borehole sampling of the sites. So far, there is no evidence of a problem with respect to the Ontario sites. The CN site is under federal jurisdiction and has already been closed. Nevertheless, we have requested the federal government to take remedial action.

I trust it is clear that Ontario has already conscientiously dealt with those sites of potential concern within our own jurisdiction.

The toxics committee report also identified 139 chemicals of concern in Niagara River water. While the chemicals were detected in raw, untreated water, we wanted to determine whether any of them were present in our treated drinking water. For the past six years, Ontario has been monitoring drinking water quality in the Niagara area. The program was initiated in response to concerns about chemical dumps near the river, primarily on the US side.

2:10 p.m.

Today, I would like to share with members the results of our most recent drinking water survey. It is the most comprehensive evaluation of water quality ever undertaken in Ontario or, to my knowledge, anywhere in North America.

Using data from the NRTC report as the basis of the inquiry, my ministry launched a thorough sampling of drinking water. Samples were taken from seven water treatment plants; four are in the regional municipality of Niagara at Niagara Falls. Fort Erie, Welland and St. Catharines. The St. Catharines plant is also the source of supply for the great community of Niagara-on-the-Lake and for the community of Thorold.

It should be noted that the city of Niagara Falls gets its water from the Niagara River at a point above the falls, that Fort Erie's intake is in Lake Erie and that Welland and St. Catharines derive their drinking water from the Welland Canal. For purposes of comparison, water samples were also taken from Hamilton, Oshawa and the R. L. Clark plant here in Toronto.

Routine testing was greatly expanded to analyse tap water for all potential contaminants of concern that were identified by the NRTC as being present in the untreated or raw Niagara River water.

I would like to point out that it is only with recent advances in analytical equipment and protocols that we have been able to undertake such sophisticated testing. As members will recall, I have made the point repeatedly in this House that our laboratory now can detect chemicals at levels previously thought impossible.

We now can find not only one part in a million parts but also one part in 1,000 times that and 1,000 times that and 1,000 times that; that is, one part in a quadrillion. Put another way, it is the equivalent of one second in 32,000 years. In practical terms, if they are there, my ministry staff and the technical people I have in the employ of the Ministry of the Environment will find those contaminants.

Of the 139 chemicals of concern cited in the NRTC report as being in untreated Niagara River water, we could detect only very minute traces of nine organic compounds in drinking water. Let me stress that not one exceeded our drinking water quality objectives or existing water quality criteria.

Three of the nine detected are created during the purification of raw water. In all cases they were far below Ontario drinking water quality objectives; in other words, they were on the safe side again. Six others, likely of industrial origin, were detected only in the parts-per-trillion range; that is, at levels at least hundreds of times below the threshold levels at which toxicity is believed to occur.

The treated water was also sampled for metals found to be present in untreated Niagara River water. I am pleased to report that our sampling found none of the metals defined as toxic -- arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead -- in the drinking water, even at levels less than one part per billion. The six metals we did detect, including aluminum, copper and zinc, were those found naturally in Ontario's surface waters. Again they were far below Ontario drinking water guidelines.

I would like to give the members some idea of what our findings mean to people who drink the water in Ontario, including me. A person would have to drink more than 30,000 glasses of water a day every day for a lifetime to exceed the safety levels of, for example, the chlorinated benzenes detected in our samples.

The analysis of the drinking water from the seven treatment plants indicates that it not only meets but surpasses the qualitative criteria established by the World Health Organization and by Ontario's drinking water objectives. In other words, it more than meets all health-related objectives known to medical and scientific authorities. Of course, we have some authorities on the other side of this House who know more than some of the world health authorities, and they will be telling us about this shortly.

The water coming from Ontario's water treatment plants is second to none in the world, and I am proud to say that.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the report of the Provincial Auditor, which was presented to the standing committee on public accounts on November 22, 1984.

First, let me deal with two matters that concern the operation of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. In his report, the auditor refers to an overpayment of approximately $150,000 relating to 45 Nigerian students. He is correct in his statement that this overpayment should have been prevented.

Procedures operating at the time were such that the auditor's report was examined in the Ontario college information system, commonly called OCIS, while the grant distribution was calculated within a branch of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The procedure required that an appropriate reconciliation be made in all cases. In this instance, the reconciliation did not take place. However, the entire procedure has been replaced now by a more appropriate one in which no separation of function occurs.

A second, more serious matter is the auditor's observation that "the ministry should have had sufficient time to make earlier adjustments" to the grant paid to Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology.

By the time a firm estimate of the overpayment had been established, Algonquin College and all the other colleges had made their budgets and had entered into contractual commitments covering the whole of the year 1983-84. To have adjusted the grant in mid-year would have deprived Algonquin of funds it had already contracted to expend and might have forced the college into a deficit. As an adjunct, it could have also forced the laying off of a significant number of faculty members within that college.

An adjustment of this nature should be made at the beginning of a financial year, not part-way through it. For that reason, after careful consideration an informed decision was taken and the adjustment was not made at an inappropriate time, but was made for the following year.

The auditor's statement that the ministry "waived recovery" is somewhat confusing to those reading it. The concern is a matter of distribution amongst the colleges and not a matter of the government spending more than it should have. The question of recovery does not arise.

The auditor points out that the decision not to redistribute was recommended by the funding review committee following consultation with the other colleges. It was, however, the consensus of the college community that there should not be redistribution and that the ministry's decision not to adjust the grant during the 1983-84 year was correct.

With respect to the training in business and industry program, the Algonquin management centre has amended its internal procedures so that the TIBI consultant cannot now alone control any expenditure. There is now a shared responsibility that eliminates the danger of a recurrence of fraudulent transactions. In addition, a directive has been sent to all colleges emphasizing the importance of maintaining adequate checks and balances to ensure appropriate standards of accountability.

Since the time of the fraudulent transactions, the administration of the TIBI program has been further developed, and the past occurrence of telephone approvals or retroactive approvals, as rare as they were, has been eliminated totally.

In his comments on management controls, the auditor states his belief "that the college was entitled to a larger share of the fees collected by the Society of Management Accountants for services provided by the college." I should report that the college administration is in contact with the SMA now to review the settlement that was originally made between those two institutions.

Let me now turn to those matters which refer to the operation of Algonquin College.

The auditor observed that the controls exercised by the college were "unquestionably inadequate" in the case of the financial management program and that there were "weaknesses in internal control" in the case of fraud in the TIBI program. At this stage, the important matter is not that things did go wrong, which they did, but that action has been taken, is being taken and will continue to be taken to minimize the likelihood of such things going wrong again.

2:20 p.m.

I should like to emphasize that this process of strengthening controls is a long and painstaking one, but it has started under a new management team at Algonquin College in the following ways:

1. A new system of budgeting and budgetary control has been prepared and is in the process of being introduced;

2. The registration process, including all matters relating to the enrolment audit, has been centralized under the control of the registrar;

3. Campus administration and the handling of cash have been brought totally under centralized control;

4. An integrated on-line system for financial reporting, budgetary forecasting and student information has been designed and will be implemented;

5. Targets for the productive use of resources have been reinforced; and

6. The audit committee has been re-established as a committee of the board of governors and in matters of importance, the auditor now deals directly with the audit committee with no intermediary.

As well, I have assumed a direct role in the appointment and terms of reference of each of the college's auditors, both of which are subject to scrutiny and approval of the minister until we are satisfied that the management of the college has been re-established at an acceptable level.

In addition, I have appointed a member of my staff to be a nonvoting member of the college's board of governors. He will give appropriate guidance to the board and will report to me if there are matters which require ministerial attention. This arrangement will continue until the ministry and the minister are satisfied that adequate management and controls are firmly in place in that college.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Let me congratulate the minister on his cunning in presenting these two reports together. However, he has clearly ignored all of the import of the study on toxics in the Niagara River. In trying to launch a defence today by looking at the water quality study, he clearly ignores what is happening and the import of that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is cunningly conceived to try to defend inaction over the past several years. There is even the way the minister talks about the 61 waste sites having potential, when the report itself says a number of them have contributed and are contributing now to contaminants in the Niagara River. He has clearly chosen not to point that out.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister not aware that the potential for contamination pointed out in the study is absolutely awesome? I point out to him the language of the layman's guide saying, "The most worrisome knowledge is that the contaminants problem in the Niagara River is going to get worse whatever we do and we just don't know the time frame."

How can he stand and justify what he has done in the past with this puny little study of drinking water when, in fact, that is not the problem pointed out in the governments' joint study?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I resent the use of the word cunning because obviously the honourable member does not understand either the initial report or the statement I made in the House today.

He completely ignores the fact that some $7.5 million was spent by four levels of government to determine exactly what the problems are in the Niagara River area. In no way, shape or form are we ignoring the fact that there are serious potential problems almost singularly located in all instances on the American side of the river.

The reality is we have done a number of things. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to mention all of them, but if I can I will mention a few. When you feel I have exhausted my time you can let me know.

I would like to start with what this government has done in addition to the $7.5 million we have spent to identify the problems the member is now using in this House to indicate our inaction, which is totally inaccurate. The reality is that this government and the ministry I represent have spent well in excess of $1 million on the Niagara River improvement team to keep a very close eye, particularly on the problems that are developing on the American side of the river.

The member knows that we have intervened in the courts in the United States as well. Our monitoring team is actively engaged virtually on a 24-hour basis in determining the problems in that jurisdiction. The frustration in all this is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot point to a single problem on the Ontario side of the river.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The only problems he can point to are on the American side of the river and we are doing everything that is possible --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Peterson: I can point to a history of inaction, rationalization and justification by his ministry. It is one of the main reasons we have the problems we do today.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Peterson: The minister was not involved in the Love Canal, he chose not to be involved in the Hyde Park hearings and when he got involved in the S area hearings he completely screwed them up. He knows the problems and I know the problems. Now he has cut back his own budget and is not prepared to address them.

He knows the problem and I know the problem. We have to get in and remove the contaminants on the American side, and he has taken a very weak position on this matter throughout the past few years.

Is the minister prepared to get in and take strong action to remove those toxic chemicals to save our own drinking water? That is the question. What is he prepared to do?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is interesting that in the context of the question the honourable member just asked, he did bring up the quality of drinking water, which is one of the main thrusts of the report he swept aside a couple of minutes ago. Interestingly enough, he does not even listen to his own questions sometimes.

When the member talks about inaction on the part of this government, he should ask the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), who just had an investment of $12 million made in his community; ask the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who just had upgrading in his community; again ask the member for Niagara Falls about activated carbon filtration, which is going into his community. There is no inaction on the part of the government, none whatever.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we on this side of the House would never accuse the minister of exhibiting any form of cunning whatsoever. I want to make that very clear.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Cunning is a quality that I would not attribute to the minister or, indeed, to the government at any time.

Since the government is so totally candid and so completely devoid of cunning of any kind, can the minister tell us why he did not release the complete data of his own study with respect to the evaluation of drinking water, and why we were not told what the six compounds are and in precisely what amounts they are to be found in the drinking water? Why not release that information at exactly the same time as he releases his gloss, to put it politely, on the material he has discovered?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware, and I apologize to the leader of the third party, that the substances he has identified were not released. I will see that he gets them. There is no secrecy associated with those whatsoever. There was no attempt to gloss over any of the contaminants that were found in the Niagara River or any of those contaminants that we tested for in treated drinking water.

I appreciate the absolute, total and complete endorsement by the leader of the third party of the way in which we operate the government on this side of the House and the way in which this ministry is operated. I want to thank him for that.

Mr. Peterson: Let me get back to the substance of this report, which the minister has chosen to gloss over. I am not sure he understands the seriousness of it and the potential problems that have been developing.

What has happened today was not unpredictable by thoughtful people some years ago, when his ministry was rationalizing and explaining all the time. Let me read this quote to the minister: "The sobering reality is that, given the existence of these dump sites in their present state, particularly those containing TCDD," dioxin, "the potential for a contamination event that would irreversibly eliminate the ecosystem all the way down to the St. Lawrence and beyond cannot be dismissed."

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Peterson: That should not delight the minister, it should horrify him. Clearly the answer is the removal and destruction of that toxic material.

What action is the minister taking to persuade other levels of government, that have been shall I say equally negligent, to remove those toxics immediately? Surely that should be the number one priority. It should be the minister's priority. What is he doing?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did during the course of our interventions, most recently in the New York state circuit court. At that time we indicated that the only complete, total and final solution to the problem would be the complete removal of the toxic contaminants in the American landfill sites that were identified not only in our report but also years earlier by this government, when, I might add, the Leader of the Opposition did not show a single concern about environmental issues.

I do not know whether he has even visited the landfill sites he seems to know so much about. He should go there and visit them and get some real indication of the seriousness of the problem we are attempting to come to grips with.

2:30 p.m.

This government has intervened on a constant basis. As recently as Friday, I spoke to the federal Minister of the Environment, Suzanne Blais-Grenier, with respect to a possible intervention that can be taken by the federal government. That is something the former federal government did not do.

I will also be speaking to Mr. Hank Williams, who is the commissioner of environmental conservation in New York state. I will intervene as well with the Environmental Protection Agency. I will leave no stone unturned in an attempt to get something done in our neighbour's jurisdiction to see that those landfill sites do not contaminate the water supply of the residents of Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I cannot accept what the minister suggests: that the people on this side of the House have not played a very active role in dragging this government kicking and screaming over --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Let the record show that all leadership on this issue has been shown on this side of the House. The government is the last one to realize it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please resume his seat?

Interjections.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister will be aware of the announced purchase of International Harvester by Tenneco in the United States for some $430 million. I understand that includes the International Harvester plant in Hamilton.

Could the minister tell us what discussions he has had with the officials of one or both of those companies to ensure those jobs will remain in Hamilton and Ontario? What assurances has he received? What conditions has he put on his approval?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not received an assurance, but I have every reason to believe the jobs will stay in Canada. We will fight to make sure they do. It is in our interest to do so. I checked with my staff today and it is our belief they will.

Mr. Wrye: Sounds like Black and Decker.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It may also be the survival of a company. I think the member should look at that quite carefully before he starts making sounds like that. As he knows, that industry is in great difficulty. It happens that the two companies which have amalgamated do not have similar product lines, as I understand it. I believe the kinds of products made in Canada are likely to continue to be made in Canada. I believe we have certain economic reasons for them to stay in Hamilton, such as a lower hourly rate.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister's responsibility is not to be the spokesman for the company and rationalize its rationalization. His job is to speak up for the 1,100 workers now employed at International Harvester. Surely, he should satisfy himself as to the effects of this purchase on their jobs.

Clearly the minister does not know at the present time, but will he satisfy himself that those jobs are secure? Will he satisfy himself that those jobs will not be "rationalized" out of Canada? Will he extract guarantees from both the purchaser and the vendor that those jobs will remain in Canada? Surely that is his responsibility. I am asking the minister if he will do it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the Leader of the Opposition has a very large opinion as to what Ontario does or does not approve of. Purchases of that nature are not subject to anything except a reference to Ontario.

Certainly my job is to see that those jobs stay in Ontario. if we can keep them here, and I intend to do just that. At the same time, my friend knows that business is suffering around the world. The best way to make sure the jobs stay here is to make sure we have a competitive plant, which we will do in that case. I was looking at the comparable costs of --

Mr. Peterson: The minister's job is to fight for Ontario is it not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We do it a lot better than his party. At least our party is not in disarray.

Mr. Rae: The minister referred to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Since this matter would have gone to FIRA, what opinion did the minister offer that body regarding the position of this government? He also knows FIRA can attach certain qualifications to its approval. Did he request any specific requirements from FIRA with respect to Canadian content and keeping the plant in operation? If he did not do that, why not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the relations between Ontario and FIRA is they are privileged.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate if those relationships are supposed to be kept secret? Is he not informed by his opposite number in the government of Canada about discussions related to these matters? If he knows about them, why can he not make the information available to this House and to the people concerned with the jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend that was a rule set down long before the present government was in Ottawa. We are asked for a lot of advice. Indeed, the honourable member knows, because he has worked with me at times for industries going into his area, when we are asked our opinion, it is privileged. We generally give it but we do not divulge it.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the minister with no cunning, the Minister of the Environment.

My question to the minister is this: Given the evidence of the existence of a new kind of chemical pollution which really does represent -- and I am sure the minister will agree, since it is the substance of this vast document that has been produced a new threat to Lake Ontario and to the Niagara River, what additional legal and political steps do he and his government intend to take to ensure that this process of deterioration and this process of increasing toxicity and the poisoning of this system will finally come to an end? Damage is being done. We are not being compensated for this damage by the people who are perpetrating the damage. What new steps is he going to take to deal with the problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern indicated in the question of the honourable leader of the third party. I can only assure him we will take whatever steps are at our disposal, including influencing the federal government to intervene directly with the American authorities to bring about the cleanup of those particular sites.

I have asked my staff for a review of the so-called Superfund to see whether there is some mechanism that can be used to accelerate the use of the Superfund in the United States for cleanup purposes. As my honourable colleague the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) indicated in his response to the question yesterday, this government does not take the position that we have all the answers to a very complicated and complex international problem.

We are quite prepared to have input from the other parties with respect to a nonpartisan way to address this issue and to come to some conclusion satisfactory to all parties. We recognize that it is another jurisdiction, that it is a foreign country that is causing the problems that are polluting the Niagara River, and potentially Lake Ontario as well. We are quite open to any suggestions the member might make. It would be refreshing to hear some positive suggestions from that side of the House.

Mr. Rae: When a government says an issue is no longer partisan and when it turns to the whole House for help, then one knows it really does not have a clue about what to do.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why, for example, has the government of Ontario not launched independent legal action under the Boundary Waters Treaty, not looked at legal action under the US Clean Water Act and not even looked at the possibility of an action under the common law of nuisance? All those remedies are available. Why has the minister not made use of those remedies? Why has he not sought to get compensation for the damage that is occurring each and every day with this poisoning of the Niagara River and of Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The reason we have not taken action under the Boundary Waters Treaty is quite obvious. It should be self-evident. It is a federal undertaking and I hope my discussions with the federal minister will lead to some action that might be taken under existing agreements and will influence some changes that might occur as a result of our intervention.

As the leader of the third party already knows, we have intervened directly with the courts in the United States and we will continue to do so. We will continue to take every action at the disposal of this government to correct and rectify quickly the situation on the American side of the border.

2:40 p.m.

Again I say, with some interest and some degree of frustration, the only questions the members opposite can raise concern a foreign jurisdiction. That would indicate the cleanliness of the environment on this side of the border is second to none.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister telling us the water stops and the toxics stop at the international boundary line? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: No. I am saying they are coming from the other side.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member for Niagara Falls want to place a question? No? Then the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the report that was leaked from the two or more scientists from Environment Canada and the report that subsequently was forthcoming this morning to everyone in Ontario, and recognizing the seriousness of the situation, does the minister not agree that now is the time -- it may have been several years ago that we should have been doing this -- to have the Premier (Mr. Davis) meet with the governor of New York state, and the Prime Minister of this country meet with the President of the United States, to discuss a matter that has ramifications for millions of people who live along the Niagara River and the Lake Ontario basin?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is aware I have no reservations whatever about recommending to the Premier of this province that he meet with the governor. The Deputy Premier gave that undertaking yesterday. In his response to the question, he indicated the Premier of this province is prepared to go anywhere in North America to solve a problem of this magnitude.

I give the member that same undertaking. I cannot speak on behalf of the Prime Minister. However, I might have a somewhat more open forum to talk to him than the member does, and I will make those recommendations to him.

I will also add, if I might, on a point of personal information with respect to an earlier question that was asked -- I am trying to save the time of the House --

Mr. Speaker: I think you can rise on a point of personal information at a later time.

Mr. Rae: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is prepared to go anywhere in North America except to the Ontario Legislature.

I have a question for the minister in response to his challenge, since he issued a challenge about Ontario companies. How does the minister square the fact, separate from and not agreed to by the Americans, that two uniquely Canadian recommendations stated specifically that zero should be the objective and zero should be the target with respect to the standard of pollution? How does he explain that there are several companies on the Canadian side which are still out of line, not only with the zero target, but even with the targets of the Ministry of the Environment. The minister is aware of that.

Perhaps the minister will look specifically at page A-26 of this lengthy document. Since the minister wants the comment with respect to one company, I will refer to trichloroethylene at Atlas Steels. It is well in excess of the guidelines. The control order does not appear to have dealt with the problem of trichloroethylene at all.

Is the minister aware of that? What are he and his government doing to ensure it comes into line with the recommendation made by the two Canadian participants in the scheme that they should look hard at making zero the objective and zero the acceptable standard for these kinds of compounds?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have no problem with a zero objective when it is realistic and achievable. In the case of Atlas Steels, I think the member who sits directly behind the leader of the third party, who has indicated some concern about some of the industries in his area, will be able to confirm what I am about to say with respect to that company.

They have spent something in excess of $10 million and have controlled something in the order of 85 per cent of the contaminants that were earlier being discharged from that plant. The leader of the third party is absolutely right that some of the trichloroethylene problems and other contaminants are not yet at the levels we would like to see them. However, they are so minute and minor in the overall scheme of things that, if one takes the totality of the report we are dealing with, they are absolutely insignificant with respect to the measurable impact.

However, we are going to continue to work on problem areas such as the Niagara Falls treatment plant, the Welland treatment plant, which was recently upgraded, and Atlas Steels. We will bring those plants into compliance, but I cannot assure the member it is going to happen overnight. In some instances the technology is not there, or the dollars are not there, to be able to undertake that upgrading.

However, at the earliest opportunity, each and every plant in Ontario will meet our criteria and objectives. That is our goal and that is the thrust we are taking in this ministry and on this side of the House.

Mr. Rae: I have a new question, but I would just say to the minister that when he downgrades the problem, he sounds suspiciously like the spokesman for Hooker Chemical whom we all saw on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. last night. It was the same approach, a minor problem that does not really exist.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade. I have a letter here that is signed by Mr. Ken Lawrie, who is the spokesman for the Frank S. Miller Finance Committee. He is writing a letter to a potential donor to the Miller campaign. The letter says:

"I am writing to share with you what sets Frank Miller's candidacy apart from the rest and why he should be the next leader of the Ontario PC Party.

"Candidly, the difference is fundamental. Mr. Miller simply has a different view of the role of government in the lives of citizens."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: "His public record substantiates it. For example, Mr. Miller is the candidate who has most consistently worked to keep taxes down and expenditures at a minimum."

If that is true, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Is the Frank Miller who is running for the leadership of the Tory party and whose name is on the heading of this paper the same Frank Miller who raised personal income taxes from 44 per cent to 48 per cent? Is it the same Frank Miller who increased Ontario health insurance plan premiums by $184 million? Is it the same Frank Miller who increased the sales tax? Is it the same Frank Miller who introduced the ad valorem tax?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the member that during oral questions he must direct his remarks to the ministerial responsibilities of the ministers involved.

Mr. Hennessy: Cheap shot.

Mr. Kerrio: It was a good question, though.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, this letter, written for the Minister of Industry and Trade --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that was not the way you described it. I think you must restrict your question to the responsibilities of the ministry and the minister.

Mr. Rae: If I am only allowed to ask the Frank Miller who is now the Minister of Industry and Trade this question --

Mr. Kolyn: Let us play games.

Mr. Rae: -- and I am prepared to play the game, if that is the game that has to be played in terms of changing hats, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Trade how can he explain that someone would send out a letter under these circumstances when he has been known to have been part of a government that increased taxes by more than $2 billion? Does he still support those tax increases?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I support all measures my government has taken in the last 12 years.

Mr. Conway: You have Suncor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I will ask the Canadianized Reagan, under his own description, the Canadianized version of Reagan, which we need like a dog needs fleas in Ontario, how can he explain the fact that he is described as the candidate who has most consistently worked to keep taxes down and expenditures at a minimum? How does he explain that in the light of the record of his government?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, as I mentioned earlier --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, why are you protecting him?

Mr. Speaker: I am not protecting anybody except the integrity of this House. Rather than question the candidate, I think we had better restrict our questions to the ministers and the ministries.

Mr. Rae: I will ask then, by way of supplementary, does the Minister of Industry and Trade support the continued imposition of ad valorem taxes, which have amounted to an increase in taxes of $623 million? How does he square that with the statement that he has tried to keep taxes down?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is no longer within my domain.

Mr. Elston: Try again.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps we can try again but what are we to do, Mr. Speaker, when we have these statements going about?

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled those other questions out of order. Proceed, please.

Mr. Peterson: Send him a cheque.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Send him a cheque. That is your approach, but that is not my approach.

My question to the Minister of Industry and Trade is simply this. Since he is now the Minster of Industry and Trade, is it his intention as the would-be Premier to keep taxes down in the future as he has kept them down in the past?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerns the ongoing unhappiness at Algonquin College and the role of her ministry in that ongoing unhappiness.

The minister indicated in her statement to the House today that a host of new procedures are in place that will ensure this past unhappiness will not recur.

Is the minister aware that the second fraud at Algonquin College, specifically at the management centre, occurred months after her special envoy, Mr. Kenneth Hunter, who I believe at the time was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities, was sitting on the board of governors of Algonquin College in an ex officio capacity?

How does the minister explain that months after her special envoy arrived to sit on the board of Algonquin College, a second rather breathtaking and transparent fraud took place? To make it even worse, it involved provincial moneys, much of which derived from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development fund.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it was a significant number of months. I think it was relatively shortly after Mr. Hunter had assumed the role of the ex officio member of the board that the examination of the financial records led to the suspicion that there had been a fraud. The investigation revealed very rapidly that indeed that had happened.

All of the money has been recovered, as the honourable member knows. I think it amounted to something in the order of $34,000 and it was recovered entirely. I think a very significant personal problem totally encompassed the individual who was involved in this. It has been resolved totally and it was before the new financial arrangements were in place at Algonquin College. It was during the process of establishing those financial arrangements that it was uncovered.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister aware that 12 years ago, at the direction of one of her predecessors, the Council of Regents initiated a study of Algonquin College, in particular of its school of business. It expressed a concern at the time that there were all kinds of rumoured difficulties. The report, done by the just-retired chairman of the Council of Regents, Mr. Norman Sisco, concluded 12 years ago that the school of business at Algonquin College "bears some superficial resemblance to a jungle in which there is incredible depth of animosity and suspicion that shocked the review committee, a school of business that was shot through with allegations of burglarization, eavesdropping, bugged telephones, excessive moonlighting, blackmail, favouritism, immorality, ghost timetabling and wholesale conflicts of interest."

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister aware that 12 years ago a report done for the Council of Regents concluded there was that kind of unhappiness at the school of business at Algonquin College?

It is now clear that 12 years later we have another report that confirms the worst of these suspicions. What confidence should we now have that the government will act any more effectively in putting out this fire, when we look at the sad and sorry record over the past 15 years in which the minister and her supervisors in the ministry have played a part, in some cases a leading part, in allowing this incompetence, stupidity, corruption and criminality to take place?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that 12 years ago action was taken by the then president of the college in conjunction with the Council of Regents and that there were some improvements in the situation. I can only tell the honourable member that the college in the area he represents has been a matter of concern to me since I assumed this role. It has been a matter of such concern that we have taken unprecedented action.

The fire is out, and it is my intention that the fire remain out at Algonquin College and that there not be any conflagration in any of the other institutions either.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, she is some fireman. She starts fires all over the place.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Education passes off the auditor's report with the remark that it is confusing to those reading it. It is confusing only if she chooses to make it so.

I will refer to one particular item in the report, where it says --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Allen: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: It is the final supplementary then.

Mr. Allen: It says, "By the time a firm estimate of the overpayment had been established, Algonquin and the other colleges had made up their budget and entered into contractual commitments covering the whole year of 1983-84."

Does the minister recall that the final words of the auditor in concluding this section of his report were: "An audit report for 1979-80 and correspondence from the college dated December 8, 1980, to the ministry gave indication of irregularities in enrolment reporting; however, the college continued to be funded on the basis of enrolments reported"?

Is she telling us that it took the ministry three years to figure out it was overfunding the college? Who is in charge of the enrolment audit in the ministry? What reply did the minister make to that piece of correspondence informing the ministry that irregularities in enrolment reporting were taking place in 1980? Is the minister's statement not a piece of special pleading, and should we be having a full public inquiry into this whole matter?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had explained quite clearly that the responsibility related to the information gathering, and the declaration of funding on the basis of that gathered information, was a divided responsibility which had not been resolved properly in that situation.

There was a major error. That major error cannot occur again because the Ontario college information system is now related directly to the college affairs branch. It is no longer a part of the tripartite operation under which it had been established, which ensured that its reportage came together with the other information only on the goodwill of those who were involved in it. That has now been resolved completely, and as a result of that resolution we will ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

I did not suggest that the entire report was confusing. I said one small area, that talks about overpayment or repayment, might have been confusing to the public because it was not really a question of repayment, it was a question of the redistribution of funds already allocated.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that in the last week it came to the attention of the public that in our area in Essex county, 36 charges were laid against Essex Nursing Home and 18 charges were laid against Beacon Hill Lodge.

These charges were very serious. In fact, in the case of Essex Nursing Home, the charges are for inappropriate nursing care, namely, that the nursing home failed to provide restorative care and failed to ensure that residents were reassessed. There were also charges with respect to the cleanliness of the home, keeping residents clean and so forth.

In view of the fact that these charges were very serious, why did the spokesman for the Ministry of Health, Mr. Enright, state that court action is taken when there has not been a reasonable effort to make necessary corrections and that if the nursing homes now comply with the act, the ministry will be prepared to drop these charges?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the honourable member that the person he is quoting would not be in a position to make that decision or exercise that discretion. The matter would be out of his hands and out of anyone else's hands in terms of prosecution once it is initiated.

It is not the policy of the ministry in any way to back off on charges once grounds have existed for the laying of them. That is the position I have made clear to the staff of the ministry. I acknowledge that it has not always been the case, but I assure the member it has been so for the past year or longer.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Enright was the spokesman for the ministry, and he said he believed that "some of the alleged infractions at the home may now have been corrected. If this is the case, some of the 36 charges may be dropped." The minister will be aware that it has been the policy of the Ministry of Health to drop charges once they have been laid if the nursing home then comes into compliance.

In view of the fact that these charges are very serious, can the minister state in this House that the charges will not be dropped? Can he also state that if these charges are proceeded with, which I hope will be the case, it will be the policy of this government not to drop charges and that once charges are laid, the fines will be substantial enough to make sure they act as a deterrent to nursing homes breaking the Nursing Home Act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not the policy of the Ministry of Health. I cannot give the member the assurance he asks for, because I could not purport to completely fetter the judgement of the prosecutor once charges have been laid. I view these matters, although regulatory under the legislation, as quasi-criminal. I would not fetter his discretion in their prosecution.

What has given rise to the dropping of charges on occasion in the past is the fact that in many instances the court, on hearing evidence of the home having been brought into compliance, has either dismissed the charges or found the individuals or the home not guilty.

My instructions to our legal staff are that all charges are to be prosecuted vociferously, subject to some discretion on the part of the prosecutor. I refuse to try to completely fetter that discretion.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the all-encompassing nature of these charges against the two nursing homes and the severity of the charges, why is it that it took so long to lay the charges? Why did the minister's inspectors not begin to rectify these very wide-ranging problems long before charges were laid? It would appear that these violations of the act were going on for some time before the charges were laid.

Given his failure to act before now, what assurances can the minister give us that even as we proceed with the charges, future violations will not be allowed to fester before they are dealt with by the ministry and its inspectors?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member may recall that on at least two occasions, by way of statement in the House and by way of discussion in estimates going back beyond the present set of estimates, I have explained the changes I have implemented with respect to the enforcement procedures.

The practice in the past -- this is evident in the delays the members refers to -- had been that a period of time was allowed for the home to be brought into compliance. The policy I have established in the ministry is that where the matters are serious and relate to patient care issues, they ought to be dealt with peremptorily. The home should be brought into compliance, but that does not excuse it from being prosecuted. That is now the policy, and it has been for some time.

There are also some delays associated with the laying of charges as a result of the much more thorough training that staff have now had from trained officers of the Ontario Provincial Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police, in the preparation of cases, so they will withstand the test before the courts. The cases now are more thoroughly prepared and documented. As the member knows, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has seconded a full-time crown attorney to work on the prosecution of these cases.

For those reasons, I do not think the member can legitimately say at this stage that we are being lax. It is true that delays have occurred, but I am doing everything I can to try to minimize delays from now on.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) please resume their seats. Thank you.

In reply to a note from the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston), I can only say I thought your colleague had a more direct interest in the question being asked.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment in regard to his report that was made public this morning.

When the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and I attended the briefing last night in Niagara Falls, New York, I asked the officials of the various agencies represented there whether they had been given a mandate to study, first, the cocktail effect of the various chemicals in the Niagara River -- that is, the combination of these chemicals acting together -- and second, the safe levels of the some 261 chemicals in the Niagara River. They indicated that neither of those potentially useful pieces of information was within their mandate.

Can the minister reveal to the House why those two important areas of endeavour were not within the mandate of this study?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, it was a four-level government agreement, as the honourable member knows; so a consensus was arrived at with respect to the parameters of the study that were established back in 1981.

I share the concerns he is raising, because what we did in our drinking water study was to take the list of contaminants that showed up in the raw water sampling, and those are the very ones we incorporated in our study of drinking water quality in this province.

As a result of the earlier study that Ontario undertook, and during the course of the results of the findings being released with respect to that earlier study, we did proceed on our own to determine the answers to some of the very questions the member is raising.

Obviously the first concern, and the highest priority this ministry has, is with respect to the quality of drinking water. We want to be absolutely sure it is safe, healthy and acceptable in every respect; so we did the very things the member is talking about.

Mr. Bradley: Except, as the minister will know, we are not able to determine the safe level of approximately two thirds of the 261 chemicals mentioned in this report, nor do we really have the determination of the true cocktail effect yet, although some work has been done on it.

A second thing emerged, and I will ask the minister about it. When the officials were questioned about the effect of the herring gull testing program and what kind of role it played in this report, they indicated it played a very significant role in the development of this report.

In the light of that and the fact that the federal Progressive Conservative government has put the kibosh on the program at Guelph and apparently has abandoned the program in Burlington, and the minister having had a chance now to review that -- I know he has been looking into its ramifications -- can he give an undertaking in the House today that he will salvage both these programs that were determined by this committee to be so useful in determining the problem that existed and in determining the potential for cleaning up the problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We have not had an opportunity to review all the cuts that were made in the federal budget with respect to environmental programs. We are reviewing those at the staff level to determine whether the work we undertake in Ontario is going to be affected in any way by the decisions that were made at the federal level in connection with the herring gull program and similar types of programs. The Canada Centre for Inland Waters has also had some budget cuts that caused me some concern.

3:10 p.m.

If the health or safety of residents of Ontario is affected as a result of those cuts, I can tell the member that my approach is going to be, first, to argue those cuts directly with my colleague, the federal Minister of the Environment. Second, if I do not get the necessary action, and if I feel such is necessary after discussion with my colleagues in cabinet, we may decide to expand our own programs to include some of the programs that have been reduced, modified or cut at the federal level.

I gave the House that undertaking with respect to the Canadian Centre for Toxicology. We are already looking at ways and means of proceeding, not necessarily on our own but at least with an interim program, so we can study some of the areas of undertaking that would normally have been part of the function of that institute. We are looking at working with the universities at this time, perhaps increasing some grants to undertake certain specific studies.

We are not leaving the question unanswered. I want to give the member that assurance, but I cannot indicate to him now, particularly in a time of restraint, that I have a bottomless fund of money I can draw on simply to absorb federal programs that have been cut.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised with the minister in his initial question, as he put it, the cocktail effect of chemicals combining, or the synergistic effect of chemicals. For the seven years I have been in the Legislature, we have been hearing year after year that we do not know what the synergistic effect of those toxic chemicals will be.

The minister now has released a document which shows six chemicals getting through even our water filtration plants, albeit at very minute levels. When is he going to take some steps to start looking at the toxicology of those combined chemicals as opposed to looking at them in isolation, independent of each other? Now that we have determined that some of those chemicals are present in the water we consume, when is the minister going to start looking at their combined toxological effect so that his comments about the safety of that drinking water can reflect more than just an isolated view of each chemical?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the science the honourable member is talking about has not been developed yet. I would like to be able to stand here and tell the member that we have a cure for cancer or a cure for many diseases or that we know what the synergistic effects of the so-called cocktail combination of chemicals might be. At some point in the future, we will have the answers to those questions. At the moment, the best I can tell the member is that we are isolating them.

Mr. Charlton: When are we going to start working on it?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We are starting to work on it. Let me tell the member how we are doing it. We are taking each chemical and trying to determine exactly what levels are acceptable for those individual chemicals. That is a tremendously difficult, complex science. The people who are employed by my ministry are as advanced as any in the world with respect to this question. I have complete and total confidence in all of them. I want the member to know that. I can only say --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. That was a very complete answer.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister is sounding like a fifth candidate all the time.

Mr. Rae: The fifth man.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, four is enough.

CORNWALL JAIL

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services again about the antiquated Cornwall Jail.

How does the minister respond to the conclusion of the most recent public inspections inspection panel, which notes, "The Cornwall Jail is a dirty, small, unacceptable firetrap and should be replaced immediately with a new facility"? When he is answering, I ask the minister to remember that the new quarters he is installing there address the question of overcrowding but not the questions brought up in this report.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cornwall knows full well that an addition is being placed at the Cornwall Jail. It will increase the capacity by some 10 bed spaces, which should help to alleviate the overcrowding situation there. The jail continues to be a top priority for expansion and possibly replacement some time in the future, but the honourable member will realize that the capital funds are not available to build new facilities at this time.

Mr. Samis: Can the minister give us some indication of when we can expect some action, especially in view of the added comment by the panel that "the jail should be closed because it places inmates and staff members in such unacceptable conditions, especially in this day and age"?

I reiterate that the question of overcrowding is not the focal point of this year's report. It is talking about a firetrap, a dirty, outdated institution. When can we expect something in the future?

Second, does the installation of those new cells undermine the possibility of a new facility in the future?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I would not say it would undermine the possibility of a new facility some time in the future. As I have said on previous occasions, capital funding is not available to build a new jail at this time. It continues to be one of our priorities in new facilities at some time in the future.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a second question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerning her report today on Algonquin College. In her statement the minister indicates that "the college administration is in contact with the Society of Management Accountants to review the settlement that was originally made between them."

The Provincial Auditor's report details at great length the breathtaking scam that was perpetrated on Algonquin College and the people of Ontario by Mr. E. L. S. Huang. Because it is likely that Algonquin College and the taxpayers of Ontario were defrauded of more than $500,000, what specific undertakings is the minister going to pursue to ensure that money is recovered and returned to Algonquin College and the consolidated revenue fund of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there has been a criminal investigation and that there is a strong possibility of further action in that area, which undoubtedly will lead to some kind of retribution.

At the same time, there is a discussion going on between Algonquin College and the association -- the association being a party to the unfortunate action that took place -- to determine whether the settlement to both parties at that time was appropriate or whether it should be improved.

Mr. Conway: Reading the auditor's report, does the minister not agree it is transparent that the college and her ministry were defrauded of hundreds of thousands of dollars? What particular undertakings is she going to pursue to ensure that money is recovered and that heads, other than that of Dr. Brian Ash, roll for this incredible, outrageous fraud that has been perpetrated on the people of Ontario, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and Algonquin College?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not particularly prone to the axing of skulls. I thought that had gone out of fashion with Henry VIII. I think more appropriate action might be considered.

A number of avenues are currently being examined and pursued to ensure that the total restoration of funds is a reality for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and thereby the people of Ontario. It is my understanding that we have achieved something very close to that even now.

Mr. Conway: What particular action? Can the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member resume his seat? I will just serve notice on the member for Renfrew North that I will not caution him another time.

3:20 p.m.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will know that auto insurance company spokesmen, including Ted Belton of the Insurers' Advisory Organization, have recently predicted auto insurance rate increases of some 15 per cent for next year.

Recognizing that the property and casualty insurance companies made more than $250 million in profit, net income, in the first six months of this year and recognizing the government's rhetoric on the need for a five per cent restraint world, and the steps his government takes to force it on the workers of this province, what steps is he going to take and what investigations is he going to make to require the insurance companies to justify every dollar of increase they propose to levy against the motorists of this province next year?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone here or in the public that on occasion it is unfortunately necessary to adjust premiums to match claims. For example, in this province, the liability loss ratio for 1983 was 97, which means that 97 cents of every premium dollar went out. In other provinces it was lower and in some it was even higher.

However, the fact is that we have been well served by the competitive marketplace in this province. Consumers who are well informed in this province have an opportunity to achieve insurance rates that I would say are the equal of any in the country.

Mr. Swart: The minister knows the premiums claims ratio has nothing to do with the profit the companies are making. They have made substantial profits.

I presume we are to understand from what the minister says that he is not going to require the insurance companies to justify their increases at all. Not only that but he is not going to require them to provide any fairness in their rate system. One of the unfairnesses is the imposition of excessive rates against young drivers. The minister must be aware --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: -- that this issue is before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Evidence there shows that these are unjust levies.

Will he demand more equity in rates before he allows any increase at all? If he has not got the courage or the good sense to put in public plans, as has been done in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, will he at least do as has been done by his colleagues in Alberta? Will he at least require justification of the increases and, equally, the excessive levies against young drivers?

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is quite a mouthful. It is interesting that the member wants to be brought up to date on what is happening in this province. I think it is important that when he stands at his seat he has the opportunity to understand what is going on.

During this past year we have commenced a process of collecting other relevant data from drivers so we can determine whether there are other ways by which premiums may be assessed against individuals. We are trying to see if there is a method independent of age, sex and marital status. His chair has been comfortable so it is nice the member got up and raised this question, but he knows that is under way.

He also knows that at this very moment there is a hearing before the Ontario Human Rights Commission dealing with the issues of age, sex and marital status. At the same time, we are gathering data to determine whether or not there are other adequate criteria that could be used. I am glad to remind him of those things and it is important that he keeps in touch with these issues.

Mr. Barlow: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know that at this time of year we get many requests for funds to assist in many worthy causes. However, I think a request that came to my place of business yesterday is perhaps carrying things a little too far. It has a crest of the province on the front and it reads, "Bob Rae, Member of the Legislature." There is a request here for me to help Mr. Rae --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of privilege. Will the honourable member resume his seat, please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, in answer to the member for Cambridge, that we accept deathbed conversions in our party --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grande moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend the Royal Ontario Museum Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to reform the structure of the board of trustees of the Royal Ontario Museum. The board will continue to consist of 21 trustees, but the bill provides that eight of the trustees will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, eight will be elected by members of the museum and two will be elected by members of the museum's professional staff. This bill also increases the number of trustees required to constitute a quorum and provides that meetings of the board shall be open to the public. I hope this will bring to an end the secrecy that is occurring at the museum at the present time.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Samis, first reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit passengers from occupying the part of a bus or streetcar to the immediate right of the driver's seat after a driver has asked them to clear that area. It is a matter of health and safety in terms of bus drivers in the city and their passengers.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. McGuigan moved, seconded by Mr. Kerrio, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely:

The release of new information resulting from the Niagara River Toxics Committee report that indicates the presence of a serious threat to the water quality of Lake Ontario which provides drinking water for more than four million Ontarians;

The findings by Environment Canada officials which state, among other things, that: "Clearly, the Niagara River and Lake Ontario are poisoned ecosystems in which all media, including people, contain varying amounts of biocides, or chemicals, produced specifically to kill biota ... The concern, then, is about the health of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario ecosystems themselves, and not just a matter of the number of human cancers caused by drinking the water";

The fact that both the provincial and federal governments are reducing their environment budgets and cutting programs that could, if kept, help slow and even reverse the chemical contamination of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario prompts this move.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion was in my office within the time limits prescribed in the standing orders. I would like to point out to all members of the House, and I hope they will take note of it because I have mentioned it on three other occasions, that I think the time has come for us to correct our ways or I am going to have to make other decisions.

I suggest, with great respect to the honourable member, that the proper form of the motion would have had a period after "Ontario" in the third line of the second paragraph.

The other material you have included more properly belongs in your submission or argument that is going to be put forward, or may be put forward at a later time. I would ask all those people who are charged with the responsibility of preparing these motions to please take note of that.

I am going to give the honourable member the benefit of the doubt because I do feels it falls within the other criteria of the standing order. I will be willing to listen for up to five minutes to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Last evening the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and I, along with our environmental researcher, Gary Eiallion, attended the unveiling of the report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee. It is as a result of that information that we are here today.

I would say that traditional values are the in thing today. In his re-election campaign, President Reagan stressed the family, the American dream and the question, "Are you better off today than under previous administrations?" I would ask the members of the Legislature what could be more traditional than safe drinking water? When our forefathers came to this country they could dip pure, clean drinking water from any source of moving water.

If there is any tangible example of traditional values, surely pure, safe drinking water would be an example. Is the water better off today than in the past? The answer is clearly no.

Honourable members are aware that dramatic progress has been made in cleaning up visible pollution of the waters of the Great Lakes. Today the beaches are relatively clean. The change has been dramatic. The waters are no longer dead. The phosphorous loadings have been reduced. The algae growth has ceased to be a problem, and the resultant utrification or oxygen depletion situation is largely a thing of the past.

The water looks good, smells good, but it is deceiving. A far more insidious problem exists, the presence of toxic chemicals. Now that the visible problem has disappeared, both federal and provincial governments indicate by their actions they think the political problem has disappeared, and so have seen fit to cut back on their allocation of funds.

How is the cleanup of visible pollution made possible? It was made possible by 75 per cent subsidies to municipal sewage treatment plants. We had a 70 per cent reduction in phosphate outflow as a result. Some industries closed, and controls were placed on those that remained.

We need the same commitment on a vastly increased scale in order to do the same for invisible pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has found 3,000 chemicals that are able to accumulate in the fauna and flora of the lakes. Of those, 450 are known to be in Lake Erie, the source of the Niagara River water. Each year, 600 more chemicals are being introduced to this water system. We do not and scientists do not know the effects of the chemicals on the aquatic life or on human life.

Kent Fuller of the Great Lakes national office of the EPA says some 1,000 chemical compounds are now detected in fish in the Great Lakes. Except for DDT, which was banned several years ago, he says contaminants are not under control.

Ron Shimizu of Environment Canada said at the Lake Erie conference I attended in Buffalo, New York, last month that scientists will tell you drinking lake water will not kill you tomorrow, but they cannot tell you about your future. We and they simply do not know the cumulative effect. We cannot depend on being rescued at the end of the line, as was the case with the simple inorganic chemical, phosphorous. We are now dealing with thousands of organic chemicals, most of them produced to kill living cells. You and I are made up of living cells, and our cells can be expected to react adversely to those chemicals.

Adding to the problem is that we have no idea of the effects of the combination of chemicals, the so-called cocktail, which in scientific language is the synergistic effect of these chemicals.

We are forced by society to move away from the concept of pollution control. We are forced to think in terms of resource management. If scientists could provide a magic pill or antidote to add to drinking water to make it perfectly safe, we would still require this emergency debate. The reason is that we are dealing with the life of the lake itself, if we risk for one moment the life of the waters themselves.

We really appreciate the value of the lakes as a source of food, as a source of recreation, as a source of processed waters. We appreciate that the Great Lakes have given rise to the Ontario population, to our climate, to our economy, in fact, to the very life of Ontario. Are we to show our gratitude by poisoning the lakes themselves?

The great reforms of administrations in the United States and Canada after the Great Depression of the 1930s brought unparalleled prosperity to North America and to the world in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Today we find these reforms under assault from the forces of the political right. They say, "Leave business to business."

Mr. Speaker, the governments in Ottawa, Toronto and Washington may be willing to do that. We in the opposition are not prepared to accept the consequences of these actions. We call on you to allow this very important emergency debate.

The Ministry of the Environment should establish an action plan for Lake Ontario that will lead to the removal of toxic waste from the Niagara River dump sites, upgrade the sewage and water filtration systems of Ontario and increase the monitoring of the growing plumes of toxics in Lake Ontario.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our caucus to support this motion asking for an emergency debate this afternoon on this very crucial issue. I think the statement by the minister this afternoon and his response to questions about that statement clearly indicate why there is a need for this emergency debate.

In his statement, the minister clearly continues to take the position that because drinking water as we know it today is theoretically safe, the growing dangers of chemical contamination from the American side of the Niagara River do not endanger our drinking water for the future.

One of the things the minister's statement clearly indicates is that the vast majority of Ontario's municipalities have water filtration systems through which many of these chemicals can pass. Those filtration systems do not remove those chemicals totally. Although the minister's testing this fall indicates very minute quantities of six chemicals in treated drinking water, there is the potential, as the volumes and concentrations of those chemicals increase in the lake, that the concentrations that are getting through the drinking water filtration plants will also increase.

We have a couple of pilot projects under way in this province to deal with this, but the technology to protect the vast majority of the four million or 4.5 million Ontario residents who depend on Lake Ontario for their drinking water is some years away from being in place.

It is obvious that the minister does not fully understand what happened before his assumption of the role of Minister of the Environment. Between 1977 and 1982 we repeatedly listened to his predecessor and his predecessor's predecessor talk to us in this House, when asked about the need to intervene in New York state to protect Canadians and Ontarians, about diplomatic protocol.

We heard the same things from the federal government and up until the present minister assumed office, we had had no formal interventions by this government in these particular issues around contamination of the Niagara River by chemicals. We can argue in this House about the one formal intervention we have had concerning S area, but whether it was a good intervention or a failure, that one intervention obviously is not enough.

The minister talks about a number of initiatives the government is prepared to take, including looking at the Superfund and whether there are ways of speeding up the expenditure of that money.

I suggest one of the reasons we have an emergency here today is the reports we have had released in the last two days and the actions taken by this government, and I must admit it has started to take some action; whether it has been appropriate or not is another question, to date it has not been sufficient to resolve the problems.

3:40 p.m.

The chemicals continue to contaminate and to leak into the river and ultimately into Lake Ontario. We must proceed beyond the actions this government has been willing to take up to this point. We have to throw aside this notion that we have to be careful how we proceed and that we have to look to diplomatic protocol.

It is getting to the stage where if we do not take action soon to stop the problem from continuing to grow, we are going to be beyond the point of no return. The report is significant in pointing that out to us. The damage that can be done may be irreparable and we have to stop it before that happens. This is why we have an emergency here this afternoon.

In his response to me, the minister admitted his comments about the drinking water being safe, even with those six chemicals in that drinking water after treatment, are only true in relation to each of those chemicals in isolation and have no relevance at all to the potential of those six in combination.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate. I have listened very carefully, and quietly I might add, to the comments made by my opposition critics.

In the House today I tabled information indicating the safety of the drinking water supply we have in Ontario. I thought it was a very significant report and very significant information. Although I admit there are some problems, those that relate to drinking water supplies in this province are under control as a direct result of the very sophisticated state-of-the-art treatment we have for drinking water in Ontario.

As I listened to the comments of the opposition critics earlier, it seemed quite appropriate for them to pack overnight suitcases and drive to Albany, New York, to camp on the steps of the legislature there. They could carry out this discussion in another jurisdiction, because virtually every comment made was almost specifically directed in all instances at problems in that other jurisdiction, not only what was said in the five or 10 minutes we have heard from the opposition critics, but also earlier in question period.

These problems are not going to be rectified or corrected or in some way solved as a result of a debate of whatever length in this assembly. I wish they could be. The question raised about the synergistic effects of the so-called chemical cocktail is not going to be resolved in this House. Again, I wish it could be. Based on the best evidence the scientific community and the world health community can provide for us in terms of determining what the standard and the quality of water should be in this province, we are meeting all the criteria.

The reality is that not only have we based the findings of our report on the standards that have been established and accepted on a worldwide basis, but also we have gone beyond that. The member for Niagara Falls should be very confident about the kind of information we are providing to him and to his community. It indicates we are doing our job on this side of the House. I do not say that in a partisan way. I say it only as a result of the concerns I share with the members.

I want to give this House an undertaking and a commitment. I will do everything within my power, with the co-operation of my colleagues in cabinet and in caucus, to intervene as directly as we possibly can in the situation in New York state and to attempt to get a cleanup of the landfill sites as quickly as is physically possible.

For the first time in the history of this province, we have intervened directly in the New York circuit courts in an attempt to bring our case directly to the American public, the judge and the Environmental Protection Agency. What we heard from the other side of the House was, "By golly, you hired the wrong firm of lawyers." That was the great input we got from the gentlemen opposite.

It is simply not adequate. When they are dealing with serious questions and issues of the magnitude and potential impact these landfill sites have, I am afraid they have to come up with a more intelligent and more responsive kind of action than simply to suggest the lawyer was the wrong one to hire.

We have spent very large sums of money to defend the interests of Ontario and we are going to continue to do that. We are going to give the people of Ontario continued assurance that their drinking water quality is second to none in the world, or I will stand up in this House and report whatever information there is to the contrary, if and when that develops.

I am happy to say that until now we have not had that problem. I can give the House the assurance that we are looking after the environmental affairs of this province. We are intervening on the landfill sites. We do have safe, pure, healthy drinking water and we are going to make sure that will continue to be the case for the long-term future of this province.

Mr. Nixon: I hope the minister is right.

Mr. Elston: The minister is mixing cocktails and making us drink them.

Mr. Speaker: Now it is my turn. I have listened carefully and attentively to the points put forward --

Mr. Elston: He has the yellow book.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I was confirming my --

Mr. Martel: Decision.

Mr. Speaker: -- position. I have not made a decision yet. To cut a long story short, I will put the question to the House, because it does fall within the criteria of the standing order, shall the debate proceed?

4:12 p.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Kerrio, Lupusella, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Spensieri, Swart, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Barlow, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean;

McNeil, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 33; nays 50.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, third reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a clarification as far as Bill 89 is concerned. The various hydro commissions have expressed their concern over the way the bill reads, in that it will come into effect in the first part of January. They feel they need more time to adjust to it. From discussions with the member who is piloting through the legislation, the indications are they will be given that time.

Mr. Speaker: If I may interrupt, would you resume your seat for a moment. I ask all those members who are carrying on private conversations to do so elsewhere please. I find it very difficult to hear the honourable member's remarks.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The hydroelectric commission in Simcoe would like to have until September 30 to make arrangements with Ontario Hydro to take over its portion of the lines now owned by Ontario Hydro. They feel they need that length of time to put things in order.

I would like to have the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Energy indicate whether this is agreeable. If so, it should be agreeable with the commission as far as Haldimand-Norfolk is concerned.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since there was some indication when the bill had second reading that it was being hurried through the House, there is also a matter of some concern that representatives of the municipalities were not able to come in to committee to express their views on the matter. The government worked on the bill quite a long time, but was not very keen to carry it. The information we had was that if it were necessary for the bill to go to committee, the government would not bother proceeding with it at this time but would hold it over until 1985.

There was some clear indication that at least some of the municipalities directly affected would benefit from the passage of the bill in 1984. For that reason, as House leader on this side I feel it should proceed rather than undergo a further delay. I hope the bill will have third reading and go forward.

4:20 p.m.

I have a concern that the whole concept of regional government in the area has been shown through this experimental period to be something less than productive, and this larger service area organization has a lot to do with regional government.

In that regard, I am a little unwilling or reluctant since, as I say, the experiment has been such a serious failure. However, for the benefit of those constituents who would have the advantage of lower Hydro rates in the near term, I believe the House should now read the bill a third time.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment, because there are probably some legitimate concerns in the Haldimand-Norfolk area with respect to this bill.

I appreciate the comments of the House leader of the Liberal Party in supporting third reading of the bill. I quite agree that there are some fundamental reasons why the bill should have third reading. There are municipalities that are quite prepared to go ahead to restructure their utilities and time is of the essence in that regard.

However, with respect to the comments of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), we are not insisting that the utilities in the area meet a deadline of January 1. If they require additional time to address their various concerns, that time can be accorded them. If they wish to replace commissioners or to get new commissioners in place by that time, that is their prerogative. We are not going to come down with a heavy hand on January 1.

With that kind of note of caution and an understanding from within our own ministry in dealing with these utilities, I hope some of the fears of these municipalities can be allayed.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill 102, An Act respecting the Sale of Lands for Arrears of Municipal Taxes;

Bill 132, An Act to amend the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act;

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

ELECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, which has been on Orders and Notices for a while and which has been printed since March 29, I am happy to take part in this debate. I will begin by offering a few remarks on this very important piece of legislation.

The review of an election act gives all of us in this House an opportunity to review what elections are all about. Because free elections are the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, I believe I should use this opportunity to review in some detail the philosophy and processes embodied in the bill we are considering.

This will be the first substantial amendment to our Election Act since the present legislation was passed in 1969. This act draws upon the experience of the past 15 years in attempting to adjust to the contemporary environment in which we find ourselves. In doing so, we will also preserve many of the traditional and time-tested election procedures that have served us so well in Ontario over the past years.

Mr. Mancini: Served whom?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All of us. They have served all of us very well over the past years.

Underlying everything in this bill is the commitment that government exists only by the will of the people and that our citizens must be unhindered in expressing this will through a secure, accessible and easily understood electoral process. For this reason, this new act broadens both the physical and procedural access of citizens to the polls.

Election day in Ontario under this revised act continues to be Thursday. The bill provides for a common time for polling between 9 am. and 8 p.m., local time, year-round, except in the districts of Kenora and Rainy River, which are in the central time zone; polls there will be open from 8 am, until 7 p.m., central time. The effect of this change is that no poll will open sooner or close later than any other poll in Ontario.

In Bill 17, the minimum time period between the issuance of the writs and polling day is reduced from 37 days to 30 days. In response to many requests and considerations, we decided to revert to the 37-day period in the present Election Act for that period before November and after April, making a uniform 37-day period, rather than moving to 30 days as suggested in this bill. In committee, I propose to introduce an amendment to make that change, which I have shared with my friends on the other side.

In this bill we would remove the 44-day period in effect for the winter months. I suppose that was a carryover from the days when modern communications and a very effective postal system were not in effect.

Mr. Ruston: We had a better post office then.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was a lot cheaper to send the mail.

Mr. Ruston: No, not a bit; 32 cents now is the same as five cents back then. It is all relative.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is 32 cents, and in those days it was three cents. What we are paying for now is three cents for delivery and 29 cents for storage.

That amendment will be forthcoming when we deal with this bill in committee. It will provide for a uniform period of 37 days, but nomination day will remain 14 days before polling day.

There are three significant changes in the nomination process in this bill: a reduction from 100 to 25 in the number of signatures required for nomination, the requirement for the first time of a deposit of $200 and the requirement of a statement of having filed or an undertaking to file for registration with the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses from each candidate.

The most important changes in this bill are designed to better accommodate the electors and remove any barriers that could deter them from exercising their franchise. Enumerators will be required to make three visits before leaving a notice envelope at the residence, and provision is made to add names to the voters' list until the day before polling day. In rural ridings, the historic right of election day vouching will be continued.

We are proposing to add Thursday to the Saturday and Monday prior to election day for broadly situated advance polls. As a further convenience, six additional days of polling before election day will be held in the premises of the returning officer on the 12th, 10th, ninth, eighth, sixth and second days before election day.

4:30 p.m.

In addition, this bill broadens the category of those who may act for the voter at the revision of the rolls; for example, a teen-aged child may ask to have a parent's name added.

The bill also extends the right of designating a proxy to an elector who is away from the riding on business during the polling period. As a precaution, however, one person may be a voting proxy for no more than two electors, and there are specific penalties for any corruption connected with proxy voting.

Returning officers will be required to seek out polling locations with access for the disabled. Polling officials will be authorized to move the ballot box to help the elderly or the disabled; for example, they could carry the box to the door if the voter could not come inside the polling station. Municipalities and school boards, along with landlords of premises of more than 100 dwelling units, will be required by law to make polling space available at the request of the returning officer.

Finally, the grounds for a judicial recount are being restricted solely to determine who is the winning candidate. Recounts were considered in recent years to determine second or third place in order to establish entitlements for rebates or status in subsequent elections.

A further change removes the term "British subject" as a voter qualification after July 1, 1986, when we will use terminology similar to the federal and most provincial election acts; that is, "Canadian citizenship." The residence requirement is changed from 12 months' to six months' residence in the province at the same time as the change in voter qualification from British subject to Canadian citizenship takes effect. There are, of course, a great many changes of an administrative nature, all of which are based on our experiences of recent elections.

While this legislation is of necessity introduced by us as a government bill, in reality it belongs to all of us in this House. I would like to acknowledge, as I did when I introduced this bill, and thank the initiative of the former chief election officer, who sits before us as Clerk of the House, and the present chief election officer, Warren Bailie, who provided much of the basis and the detail of this bill over the past two or three years.

The legislation we are debating today affects members directly. It affects us all very directly as the means by which we come to serve in this Legislature. However, the election process is for all and affects all citizens, even though it affects us directly. It is one of the most cherished and zealously guarded rights of our democratic society: the right to elect our fellow men to represent us in a legislative assembly. Together, we have a direct responsibility for the administration of this right and for the ability to be sure it is administered and directed properly and fairly.

Therefore, I am happy to begin this debate today. I invite all members to scrutinize this bill. I welcome any suggestions from members of this House, from any of their associates and from those concerned with the way elections are conducted in this province. Through this process, we can make the process better.

In facilitating our discussion of this bill, I am going to recommend that it go out to committee so we can have a detailed look at each of the sections. As I say, I welcome suggestions from all the members because we have worked with this process. I am sure that together we can develop an excellent Election Act for this province and that the bill we are presenting today provides the cornerstone and basis for that process.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the province has been well served by our election legislation in the past. I cannot recall a time when there was any serious criticism of the election procedures or any significant consideration that all was not well in the taking and counting of the ballot.

If one looks at the history of the province, in the very old days there were always controverted elections from specific constituencies at each election time and the new Legislature, when elected, often had to spend a good deal of its time settling those controversies through a procedures and elections committee. In my years in the Legislature, it has been very rare that any matter of that nature has surfaced, and upon examination any criticism was usually seen to be without foundation. We are starting off well with this new act, basing it on administrative procedures and statutes as well as on regulations that have been proved workable.

There may be many reasons, which I might explain to you, Mr. Speaker, if you were interested, why the opposition has not had the responsibility of government for these past few years, but the Election Act itself is not one that I can rest on.

There are some specific things in the bill that I find of great interest and a couple of things that we in this party are critical of.

One thing I want to deal with is the number of days available for a campaign. We welcome the announcement from the government House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), that he is going to introduce an amendment to the legislation restoring the period of the election campaign from 30 days, as in the wording of bill whose second reading he has just moved, to 37 days. We intend to support that.

However, my colleagues and I feel that 44 days for the winter months is not an anachronism. In fact, it is an additional period of time that can be useful in the democratic process in a jurisdiction like Ontario, which in the winter months does suffer from some diminution of the ability of the candidates to move around readily and communicate with the electorate.

I myself was elected in a winter by-election. The writs were issued a little later in the winter than this, back in 1961, and the by-election itself was held on January 18, 1962. It is interesting to note that there were five by-elections, and they were called by the newly elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the newly sworn-in Premier, John Robarts. It meant the new Premier was somewhat off balance when the first thing he had to do was to go out and fight five by-elections. It might be interesting for members to recall that he almost lost all five; if there had been any justice he would have. But in fact he won two by the narrowest margins, and the official opposition as it was then, our party, won three, and I was fortunate to be one of the elected members.

I was thinking of that when the present Premier (Mr. Davis) announced five by-elections at this time of year. I had a feeling that part of the thought that projected the decision to have the by-elections now, rather than to hold them over for when there would be one or two or perhaps more additional by-elections, was that he did not want to leave his successor with the necessity of either having a general election, which might be a course of action to be considered, or having by-elections if it were not convenient for some reason, obvious or otherwise, to have a general election.

In a wintertime election, even in a southern Ontario constituency such as Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- or, as it then was, Brant -- the snowdrifts are mighty high and the roads are often closed. The hours for going out, knocking on doors and meeting constituents are obviously restricted because of the short hours of daylight.

It seems not irrational to us to keep the extra period of time for wintertime elections. For one thing, they are very rare indeed. We have all experienced one; the most recent one was within that period of time. But they are generally not the regular rule of politics in Ontario, where elections are usually held in June, September or early October, much more convenient times for the campaigners and, much more important obviously, for the electorate itself.

We intend to move an amendment, and we will be glad to give copies of it to interested members, that would restore the 44 days for a wintertime campaign. I ask other members of the House, in the other parties particularly, to give positive consideration to it.

I have a number of points here, not necessarily in order of importance, that I want to bring to the attention of the House. I am not referring to specific sections of the bill; they just came to mind as I perused it.

4:40 p.m.

There is an interesting discussion about the polling day itself. I have even had a personal discussion with that fount of all electoral wisdom who sits in the big chair at the head of the big table. Our present Clerk of the House explained to me clearly why it was irrational to consider any other day than Thursday. I would really like him to recite the matter to us. When the bill goes to committee, it might be worthwhile to ask Mr. Lewis to attend, simply to give us the benefit of his experience.

In this one, small, footling instance, I do not agree with him entirely. My psychological approach to politics finds Monday to be a more appropriate election day. Maybe it is because, as a Liberal, prayer is an important component in my campaign. Like certain Windsor politicians, I expect to go to five or six churches on the previous Sunday to help my chances on Monday. Frankly, it lets the political cauldron, which has been at a full boil, go back to a simmer before people go to the polls. Perhaps psychologically, rather than for any other reason, Monday appeals to me.

One of the reasons against Monday as an election day is that so many people are away at their cottages or away on a weekend holiday and do not get back in time to vote on Monday. I cannot help but feel that reason is based on people with a slightly different work schedule than that most of the people in Ontario. It is well taken that both Friday and Monday are involved in weekend activities, but I suggest perhaps we ought to consider Monday as a more appropriate day for an election.

In the information generously provided by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs the various provinces have different days. Newfoundland, which, by the way, has a campaign period of only 22 clear days. three weeks, usually votes on a Tuesday. I think the point we should consider there is that Newfoundland does not have an enumeration as we do. They have a continuing enumeration based on the municipal enumeration, which is operated at the provincial level. They have a voters' list always at the ready.

British Columbia has no enumeration either. They have 27 clear days of campaigning and their election is on a Tuesday or a Thursday. Alberta has no enumeration and it has 27 clear days. They have voted seven times on Thursday, five times on Monday and five times on Tuesday. Obviously, this report is going to take me a moment.

New Brunswick has 33 clear days for an election and votes on Monday. Manitoba votes on Tuesday. Saskatchewan has no set day and it is left to the order of His Honour to determine election day. Nova Scotia votes on Tuesday and Ontario on Thursday. Quebec, which, by the way, also has no enumeration, votes on Monday in spite of good advice it has been given over the years that Thursday is the only day it should have an election. I understand Quebec now has a new procedure where it does have enumeration and it has 47 clear days in all its election campaigns. Federally Canada votes on a Monday and we have 48 clear days for the campaign.

From my point of view, I would like some further consideration given to the polling date, and my pick would be Monday.

In his introduction to the bill, the minister very properly pointed with pride to the provision of additional advanced poll facilities. They are at the returning office itself and there are six days set out in the act during which any registered elector may go to the returning office and take part in the election by casting a vote.

In the federal election just past, the federal law allowed electors to go to the returning office any day after the ballots were ready. Rather than picking the 2nd, the 5th, the 9th and so on, which would be somewhat confusing, they simply said that after a specific date that would be advertised, anybody who could not go and vote at either the regular advance poll or the regular poll itself could go to the returning office and vote.

One of the things I did not like about that is they had to give a reason for so doing. I do not think that makes much sense. When we have to involve the electors in giving reasons or providing medical certificates such as for proxies, we are making it unnecessarily involved and complicated, and we are providing in some sense a deterrent to taking part in the electoral process. The main aim, as has been put forward by the minister himself and others expert in these matters, is to involve as many of the people as we possibly can in the democratic process.

Other jurisdictions, as the members know, have compulsory voting. I was fortunate to visit the Soviet Union in March 1984 just a few days after their election. It was really quite amazing that they were able to achieve an electoral participation of about 99.9 per cent. It is further amazing that of the elected members of the Supreme Soviet, there have been nothing but unanimous votes since 1923. Perhaps there are some tricks of politics that remain unrevealed in our system here.

However, if we do not spend a lot of time considering that jurisdiction or any of the centrally planned jurisdictions, we could look at Australia where they have compulsory voting. I do not like the idea myself. It is up to us as people participating in the democratic process to see that the people in our own communities get out and vote.

Still, with our best attempts and efforts, and with the most interesting campaigns that we can possibly contemplate, the level of participation is often between 50 per cent and 60 per cent. On rare occasions, it goes up towards 70 per cent when there is a special matter of concern and interest in a constituency.

Perhaps we might stimulate interest a little if we put a nice big box of free Ontario road maps beside the returning officer or the deputy returning officer and handed one out to each person who voted, or had some of the good Ontario wine that is selling a little slowly. I do not think we ought to give a quid pro quo for doing democratic duty --

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: Any of those things might be all right. It was the Tories in Prince Edward Island who were charged with fiddling around with strong drink in trying to persuade people to vote for their party. It was justice from on high that their candidate was defeated. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you agree.

As far as the advance poll is concerned, I suggest that when we come to that section, we might well amend it so it is possible to vote at the returning officer's constituency office any time after a specific time when the ballots are ready. They did that federally and our experience was that it worked very well. I suggest that for electors who want to make use of any of these advance poll facilities or of the proxy, it not be necessary that they have to require some special reason set up under law for using those additional facilities. We are well past that.

The next point I want to refer to briefly is the method of vouching in rural polling subdivisions. That is a benefit that rural electors value highly. I really do believe that most of us from rural areas are more honest and for that reason it is okay. However, as a sop to our urban friends, I think we should simply take out the adjective "rural" and allow people to be vouched in an appropriate way in any polling subdivision.

I do not think that opens up the system to any more abuse than is possible in some areas now. We are well educated in the importance of a squeaky clean electoral procedure and we ought to consider doing that. I would like to discuss that in committee and I hope for some support from some of the urban members who might consider amending the bill in that way.

4:50 p.m.

There is a section that says judges should not vote. When I pursued this with the former chief electoral officer, he indicated at one time that we should remove that prohibition. The judges, being special people, were quick to hasten to the chief law officer of the crown and persuade him they were special and should not get themselves all nastied up by participating in the democratic process. I will not add a footnote about how they got their jobs in the first place.

I personally think the electoral process is extended to everyone under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution and that we should remove the prohibition against judges voting. If they do not want to vote, if they want to put an ad in the paper and say they are well above this, I suppose they can do so, but I think everyone who is not incarcerated ought to have the opportunity to vote; I do not mind that prohibition continuing.

The next thing I have written on my rather lengthy list of subjects has to do with the designation of a party affiliation for a candidate.

Once again, I believe our main effort here is to make the election as interesting and useful as possible to the whole electorate. Believe it or not, there are many occasions on which people who should be voting say, "I do not know any of the candidates and, therefore, I am not prepared to vote." They are afraid they will go in, be presented with a ballot, look at a bunch of names -- two, three, four or more -- and not know any of them.

I cannot imagine there is anyone in Ontario who does not at least have an impression of the three main political parties or other political parties. I believe their participation in the electoral process would be more useful and knowledgeable if there was an indication of party affiliation. This is done federally and I do not see why we cannot do it in Ontario. Some participants may not be anxious to have their party affiliation known, but I believe it would be in the best interests of the procedure.

The next point I want to make has to do with a procedure on which you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps can assist me. It seems to me that after the enumeration is completed in some federal elections, among the duties of the returning officer is to send out a card by mail to every person named on the voters' list indicating the person is on the list and where that person votes.

I think that is a good idea and should be done by the returning officer, who is provided with a budget to get as much assistance as needed. I think it should be done.

Whenever an election campaign is in full swing, there are people who are concerned about whether they are on the voters' list. We still miss quite a number of people. I would like to establish as one of the duties of the returning officer the requirement that electors be informed by mail with a card that can be set up on the tray rail -- or wherever one keeps important cards, perhaps beside the telephone -- telling them where and when to vote and assuring them they have the right to do so.

I was also interested that in preparing our legislation, the government has decided a $200 fee would be necessary to accompany the 25 names for nomination. As I understand it, at the present time 100 names are required. Was it ever 200? No, it was 100.

Getting 100 names is a little daunting. There is no doubt about that, yet most people who are going forward in an election campaign are quite prepared to go out to get the names from their fellow citizens. The $200 is a deterrent that I am not sure is necessary. I do not feel strongly either way because I think that if a person gets 100 verifiable names on a nomination paper, that is probably sufficient indication of the individual's standing in the community.

If 100 people are prepared to affix their signatures to a formal and legal document of this type, then one is probably going to restrict the election, by way of candidates, to people who have some position in the community that is recognizable. I am not sure that replacing this requirement with the need to find $200 is in the best interests of what we all hope to do.

This is the end of the list, you will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, but they are matters that do interest me.

I simply say again, and I suppose I echo what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said, that our election law and our election procedure have served the community well. I believe we can improve them as long as we maintain certain safeguards, which I believe are in the bill in its present form, and do everything we can to make the electoral process convenient and useful for all the people in the province.

I look forward to the committee discussions, when certain amendments can be brought forward. I believe that the legislation, which will return to this House perhaps before we adjourn for Christmas, will be good legislation indeed, and I cannot wait to use it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill 17.

Quite frankly, this is an unusual piece of legislation, and I do not think we are going to be splitting up all over the place on party lines on it. The Election Act is a rather different piece of legislation for the members here, for example, because this is how the process works from our point of view. For each and every member of the Legislature it is a very important piece of legislation. It is the mechanics of how the election is conducted.

Many of us are also political junkies as well, so from the point of view of being involved in political parties and being interested in how campaigns are run, even other people's campaigns, we have, like a number of other people, a professional interest, so to speak, in an act such as this.

I expect that at the hearings at least the major political parties will be making representations.

Mr. Nixon: No, I think only one.

Mr. Breaugh: I know ours will and I imagine that others will. I would imagine, even though I said "major political parties," that even the Liberal Party may make a presentation. You never know.

In an odd way I think that those who have a professional interest or a self-interest in the bill will have been aware that it has been printed for some time now. As a matter of fact, I recall that we caucused on this bill back in April. Of course, there has been a bit of change, which removes one of our major objections to the legislation.

We will oppose the bill on second reading, and I want to outline a couple of concerns that I have. It is fair to say we could probably get 125 ideas of how the Election Act should be written out of the Legislature itself. If we extrapolated that into the political panics we could probably come up with 2,000 or 3,000 pieces of law on how each individual who has ever been involved in an election in whatever capacity thinks it ought to be put together, so it is a bit of a consensus-building exercise that we are about.

One of my concerns has been that although the bill has been printed for some time, I am not sure the other group of folks who also have some slight interest in an election act have much knowledge it is around and that group is the electorate out there. There has not exactly been front-page news coverage of the act itself.

The act provides for what might be termed a disfranchising of some of our citizens. I am not sure they are aware that in July 1986 a group of people who have probably been fiercely interested in the electoral process will no longer have a franchise unless they do some things between now and then. They are people who fall into the category of British subjects.

As one who has been involved in the practical side of election campaigns as well as having been a candidate, I know there is some difficulty keeping that list up to date -- countries change their names, etc -- so there is a practical problem that has to be resolved. The government has responded in the bill by saying, "We will postpone it for a while."

5 p.m.

However, it is already December 1984. I am not sure very many people know about that provision in the act, but I am sure they will find out about it at the next enumeration and will be very angry. I know on the streets of Oshawa they will be saying to me: "Why did I not know this was going on? I did not see it in the paper."

One of my concerns is with that whole other group of people, never mind the pros and those who have a vested interest in the Election Act; in fact, everybody else in this province has a vested interest in it as well. I am not sure they have had much of an opportunity to be aware of it or to do anything about it.

It would be my wish that some effort be made to involve the public, or at least to provide them with an opportunity perhaps to make a written submission or, for some of them, to make representation as a group to the committee. They can do that if it goes out to committee, as I understand it will.

I would like to make sure it is a practical reality as well as a theoretical reality. In other words, we could decide we will hold committee stage this next Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. However, I am not too sure the world watches the Legislature of Ontario with such great intensity that people will be aware the bill has gone out to a place in this building where they might actually be invited to speak.

I have some concerns that the electorate at large will not have exactly a full-tilt opportunity to make representations to the members of the Legislature who deal with the bill in committee. I think it reasonable at this stage to say the pros have had their chance to look at it and are prepared to proceed with it and probably in short order.

I am not personally anticipating a lengthy debate on second reading because it really forces one to go all over the map. We are talking about how to provide access for the handicapped, when elections are held and how long the periods are.

I want to get some of my concerns and the concerns of my party on the record because we oppose the bill in its present form. First, the move was made to shorten the election period. Even though an amendment has been proposed, as printed, it still remains a shorter electoral period than we now have.

Quite frankly, my concern is that one can talk about electronic campaigning and all of that and make a reasonable argument in many parts of the world that a campaign period does not have to be more than two or three weeks or 25 or 37 days. However, I think the reality of the province in which we live is that it is not always possible. There are some factors here which make it very difficult.

As a campaigner myself and as an elected member, I would sometimes opt for a three-day campaign, get it over with, go for a walk, have the election, and that is it.

Mr. Nixon: Terry Kelly is going to run against the member for Oshawa next time.

Mr. Breaugh: We are not worried about that.

As incumbents most members of the Legislature would probably understand that for us a shorter campaign period is rather attractive. We have the advantage of being incumbents. The shorter the campaign period, the better.

The matter of convenience for the members is not the pertinent point here. The pertinent matter for consideration is, in how many days can we reasonably put together an election process that is suitable for all of Ontario? This is a bit difficult.

There are a couple of points here that bother me a little. The proposal goes after the notion of how to get rid of what are now being called frivolous candidates. It proposes to put a deposit scheme at work, in addition to having nomination papers signed by a group of people. In Oshawa if one is a Liberal, one is frivolous by definition.

This is not a great ideological thing on my part, but I am not convinced a deposit system is particularly the correct way to do that; nor am I convinced that people who might be considered fringe candidates do not have a right in a democracy to put themselves forward. I remain convinced the Rhinoceros Party has it over the Liberal Party in terms of coherence and common sense. However, I am not at all convinced they are such a difficulty to the democratic process that they ought to be discouraged or done away with. Therefore, I have that problem.

As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) said, the bill continues the provision for vouching. I have never really been able to understand why there is that provision. It is fundamental to exercising a franchise. I do not understand how someone in an urban environment has less status at the polling booth than someone in a rural environment. I am familiar with the arguments that in rural Ontario we all know who everybody is, so that is a practical application.

Mr. Nixon: We are basically more honest.

Mr. Breaugh: I am not sure it has anything to do with honesty. It has something to do with our traditions. I have worked on elections recently where people went to the polling station under the impression they had a legal right to vote, and they would have had if the enumerators had done their job properly.

It is difficult to explain to those folks at the polling station why they did not get on the enumeration list. One can make long and involved arguments about the provisions to get on the list and how many times one may appeal and all of that, but on election day when Canadian citizens think they have a legal right to vote and someone says to them, "But you are not on the list," it gets a little hot and heavy.

I propose we attempt to deal with that as we go through clause-by-clause consideration. I would be happy to look at what amendments might be put forward about the vouching system. I am not convinced it is the best way, but we can work out something to resolve the unusual situation of people in rural constituencies having the ability to do something that most of my constituents do not. Oddly, I have about three farmers in my constituency. Constituencies around me are partially urban and partially rural. Some of the people in a riding have this vouching privilege and some do not. At the very least we have to provide some reasonably common standard.

I want to talk about the provision for British subjects and how quickly they become Canadian citizens. A good theoretical argument the Legislature has heard on more than one occasion is that a common standard should be struck for the right to vote in Canada. It is pretty clear in the literature that Canadian citizenship will be the common standard. The trend is away from continuing the traditional practice of giving British subjects the right to vote.

I will not make a fervent argument about that, but some practical problems are coming in the way. I notice in a newspaper report that one of the things good old Mr. Wilson in Ottawa has done is indicate it will cost more money to become a Canadian citizen. It has gone from something in the order of $15 to $40. I do not want to get dogmatic about it, but if we are changing the rules of the game, this has to become a consideration at least. If there is a family of five or six people who all want to become Canadian citizens, which they must do to have the right to vote, that is an economic penalty of some substance.

Mr. Nixon: Why not a family rate? Like the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk as quick as a whip has suggested the old family rate concept.

I do not know whether family rates or some other method could be used. Some accommodation has to be made for two things. One is making sure a lot of notice is given, more than a year or so. They have made moves in citizenship courts recently to make the process not quite so onerous or difficult. We will have to do a little more of that. We will have to make sure it is practical for anyone who is now a British subject to become a Canadian citizen.

I also want to make sure the citizenship courts are held. They are making great strides in doing that. I have attended several where a Portuguese club, for example, sponsored the citizenship programs. The members had a court date of their own. A Portuguese judge came from Toronto and spoke to them in their language.

We had a great party afterwards, and it was a great thing to do. The club had taken the initiative to get a large number of its members through this process, and it worked very well. I am not sure they would be quite as happy to pay $40 a clip for it. We will have to consider that at some length.

5:10 p.m.

This is not a partisan bill. It is about the mechanics of an election. Those of us who have worked on elections as candidates, organizers or participants, from one end of this province to the other, all have our favourite stories about election day, enumerations. etc.

In enumerations this summer in Oshawa, a nice, bright red pickup truck made it on the enumeration rolls. A German shepherd dog, whose name escapes me, also made it on the rolls. Several friends of mine were away fishing when the enumerators came around and they did not make it on the rolls. We got quite a few of them on the enumeration rolls, but we did not know about some because they came back from fishing a bit later than usual.

There are problems that do have to be resolved. I am sure when we go to committee we will regale one another with election stories of various cemeteries that have voted and things of that nature, of telegraphing and all the great skills on election day, of various campaign techniques that have been used in other jurisdictions and here.

We look forward to an opportunity at the committee stage to hear from other groups. Whether we do this before the House rises in December or whether we do this at a later date, which is my personal preference, I hope an attempt will be made to notify the people of Ontario, not just the members and the political parties and not just the people who will be holding some position as polling clerks or returning officers or whatever, but the other people who have some concerns, some self-interest and some stake in the Election Act.

They should at least be given some warning that an Election Act is going to be discussed in a committee of the Ontario Legislature so they can, at the very least, take their little pens in hand and write letters to the standing committee on administration of justice, which will hold the hearings on this. They should at least be notified and have an opportunity to respond in some way. My preference is that some provision should be made so groups other than political parties have a chance to have their say. I know there are some such groups out there.

With those few words, I will note that we are in opposition to the bill on second reading and we look forward to working out a consensus. When we go to committee, I hope we are not bound to all the parties passing out amendments and haggling over the wording of those amendments. I would prefer that we try to work out a process. We have Mr. Lewis here who is available to help us do some drafting. There are a lot of people around who can do that. I hope we can work on a consensus basis, so we can go through the committee stage and work out the difficulties and the technical problems.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to welcome the minister's invitation for constructive suggestions to improve this bill. There is one area of particular concern to me, and that is the move towards Canadian citizenship.

In principle, we support and accept that, but it has been made known to me that there were some problems with it in the recent federal election. I will just relay to the minister, for his information, one instance that should provide some cause for concern.

It concerns a lady who is a senior citizen herself, who drove two more elderly senior citizens to the polls on the day of the federal election, only to discover and to have them discover, that they were ineligible to vote because they were not Canadian citizens but British subjects. The gentleman involved is 90 years of age this year and his wife is not too many years younger. To all intents and purposes, they have been citizens of this country for many years.

They have served the country in time of war as well as in time of peace. They have done their duty. They have never asked for anything from this country and have never received a handout. Above all, they have minded their own business, gone about the raising of their families and participated in the activities of their community. One could say these senior citizens represent the salt of the earth. They have not become Canadian citizens and did not really know they needed to take out Canadian citizenship to be eligible to vote in the election.

Before we go into committee, I will undertake to communicate a letter I received from a Miss Margaret Russell of the village of Norval concerning this experience and the embarrassment she felt when taking these two elderly senior citizens to the polls to vote, only to be turned away because they were not Canadian citizens.

It seems to me some provision should be made not only in our Election Act with which we are directly concerned, but also in the federal act to allow for this kind of thing. It seems somehow grossly unfair when people serve their country, albeit their adopted country, so long and so well only to find this prohibition.

I have no dispute with the desirability and need for Canadian citizenship as a requirement to vote. I would suggest it certainly should be mandatory. But in the case of senior citizens, surely some kind of grandfathering in the legislation could take place to make a provision so as not unduly to encumber these people.

This couple are so elderly, albeit very much in possession of their faculties, that they will probably never undertake the trouble to go through the process. For a person who is 90 years old, it does become something of a difficulty.

I would suggest with great respect that when I communicate this letter to the minister, he will take it as advisement and undertake to make some provision to allow senior citizens who are British subjects to continue to have voter eligibility, even though the rest of us from now on will be required to become fully fledged Canadian citizens. I can think of nothing more fair, simply out of consideration.

It would certainly be very much appreciated by quite a large number of our senior citizens if the minister would consider my communication, which I will forward to him, and the words that have been exchanged in this debate this afternoon. These senior citizens are British subjects and have been eligible to vote, but now, by virtue of this legislation, they may be rendered ineligble and may not be capable of going through the process of taking out citizenship.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of sending this bill out for public hearings. Anything touching the lives of people as much as elections in our democratic system should be the subject of public input on how those elections should be conducted.

5:20 p.m.

I hope we will have quite a bit of input on the question of shortening the election period. I think that can affect the opportunities of new candidates particularly to challenge the incumbents and the opportunities for the different candidates to get their points across to the electorate with sufficient time to use the various means available. If it is too short, it may give an undue advantage to those who can afford large amounts of television time and a disadvantage to those who rely more on public meetings in their ridings and word of mouth at the door.

I am glad the minister is contemplating an amendment that will restore the 37-day period for the elections which are not held in the winter. However, reducing the winter election period of 44 days to 37 is something that should be looked at with more care. We should consult with the chief electoral officers as to whether more time is needed for enumeration in the winter period because of the difficulty of getting around in bad weather.

The enumeration system is still considered the most efficient way of compiling the voters' lists. The only alternative talked about is a permanent voters' list, but we have not moved to that and there are a lot of disadvantages to that as well, particularly in a period when people move frequently and when it is very difficult to keep a permanent list up to date. Given that we are going to continue the enumeration system, we should consider whether 44 days for the winter period is still necessary. I hope that will be the subject of some public input, as well as input from the chief electoral officers.

Third, I am very concerned about the retention of the 8 am. to 7 p.m. period for the central time zone because several of our big cities are in this time zone. In effect, it really disfranchises a great many electors. We have to face the fact the legal requirement that an employer give three or four hours off for voting is honoured in the breach much more than in the enforcement. It is a very difficult law to enforce because employees are not prepared to incur the wrath of their employer by asking for time off on voting day, nor are they prepared to complain after the election that they were refused time off.

Except in the summer when we presumably use the daylight saving time, the 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. law means those employees who work in retail stores, for example, from 9 am. to 6 p.m. are effectively disfranchised. They leave for work between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and it often takes them at least an hour to travel to work. Then they come home between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., again often taking an hour to travel from work. When voting is on a Thursday, the situation is compounded because a great many retail stores stay open on Thursday night after 6 p.m., so those employees who carry on into the evening hours are also disfranchised.

Therefore, I would like to see the 12-hour period of 8 am. to 8 p.m. made mandatory for all sections of the province. It should be local time, daylight saving time in the summer and standard time in the winter, so employees have 12 full hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. during which to exercise their ballot. That is the only fair way to do it.

I am sure the government will say it will cost more money because it might have to pay a higher fee to returning officers, deputy returning officers and poll clerks; however, in the interests of democracy, it is important to have the polls open when people can get to them. The only alternative, which some European countries adopt, is to have polling on Sundays. We never have considered that very seriously in this country and, unfortunately, even Sundays are now often a day of work for a great many people.

I would urge the 12-hour period from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. be considered by the government as a possible amendment when the bill goes to the committee stage.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak on second reading of Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act. This bill has its good points and its bad points. It is good for the Progressive Conservatives and it is bad for the Liberals. My riding disappeared. That could be good or bad. Naturally, I am prejudiced. I think of Tallulah Bankhead who at one time wrote as follows to a critic in answer to a very uncomplimentary review of her last appearance: "I am sitting in the smallest room in the house. Your review is in front of me. Soon it will be behind me."

This bill is on that same level. It is pretty crappy stuff. It is nothing but political gerrymandering, a practice whereby the government in power redefines the political boundaries for political advantage.

I am firmly convinced the Progressive Conservative Party is a large body surrounded by men who know what they want. Basically, why would they fool around with this when in western Ontario farmers are in the worst situation in 100 years? The only people fighting for them are Liberals. They look to us totally for help. The government sees an area in which it could gain some seats and feels there are too many Liberals in western Ontario, so it decides it will pass a law under which it can knock off at least two or three seats.

My small input into this debate is that each honourable member who has the job of representing a semi-rural riding such as I do in Grey-Bruce has a large work load.

Mr. Nixon: They do not know the half of it.

Mr. Sargent: They do not know the half of it. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is right. They have no idea.

What I say does not mean a damn. The members opposite are going to vote for it and make it law anyway. There will be a steamroller effect here. What the government is saying to each member in these ridings in the Grey-Bruce area -- the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and myself -- is that one of us in the particular area is going to go. It is saying that two of these fellows are going to have a 50 per cent increase in their work load. The people do not deserve that. The farmers do not deserve that.

One hears of a banana republic in South America having the same government for 40 years. One cannot believe it can happen here, but it does.

Mr. Nixon: It is like a nightmare.

Mr. Sargent: It is like a nightmare. It sure as hell is, and it is not getting any better. The government uses every angle it can to get a member to go across. It buys members out and buys seats and appointments, and now it stoops so low as to go into a depressed area such as western Ontario where it feels there is a chance to knock off three more guys. I think it is unbecoming to a government that is supposed to have some ethics when this happens to western Ontario. Having said this, I sure hope the members will vote against this bill.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to commend the House leader and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for bringing this forward for debate and discussion by the electorate. I am particularly pleased that section 9 does reduce the period of the election to 30 days.

Mr. Breaugh: Now we have both positions over there. This is getting interesting.

Mr. McClellan: He could vote against the amendment.

Mr. Kennedy: I had a resolution, but it is in here. Secondly. the part that provides for wheelchair access is a move I know will be well received. On advance polls --

Mr. Breaugh: Elaborate a bit on why they should not shorten the election period.

Mr. Kennedy: No. I am elaborating on the provision for additional advance polls. I think this is very important. I think it was probably the item raised most over the course of the last election. The extension to add more days is very good.

There will still be people who will be away. I do not know how broad one can have it unless there is an election over the whole four years. There are many people who have resided where they reside, who have paid taxes all the years and who do not have an opportunity to vote because they are away when the election is on. This goes a great way to make provision so that many more can vote. It is too bad that everyone cannot, but how far can one go?

With those few comments, I am glad we are now coming forward with this bill. I know it is going to result in an improvement in the democratic process. More people will be able to vote and it will be easier to vote. I think that is very good.

Mr. Bradley: I am going to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Election Act because, as other speakers have indicated, it is one of the most important acts. We want to encourage as many people in our province as possible to cast ballots. I guess all of us are appalled that in the last provincial election fewer than 60 per cent of the people of this province cast ballots.

There are various reasons for that. It could be the politics of anaesthesia, practised by those opposite who attempt to characterize this place as a glorified county council so that the only real place that counts is Ottawa.

Now that we have Progressive Conservative governments in Ottawa and at Queen's Park, I suspect there will be less inclination to pass the blame to Ottawa, although when it comes down to the short strokes, as they say in rowing, it is likely that the provincial government will save its own skin before it attempts to bail out the federal government. However, I want to talk briefly about the bill rather than about the relationship between the federal and provincial governments.

One of the mysteries of the previous legislation has always been that the chief electoral officer in each riding, in that case the returning officer, is not permitted to cast a ballot. It seems to me that individual should not be precluded. That individual has views on the various issues affecting the province. I do not think one should automatically assume that a person's impartiality will be somehow destroyed if he is able to exercise the right to vote. I think that is a progressive step that all returning officers in this province will look forward to.

Initially, I had some concerns about the 37 days.

Mr. Nixon: Thirty days.

Mr. Bradley: The reason I say that is that initially we had a problem with 30 days. We in the official opposition were totally opposed to shortening the campaign to 30 days. I am pleased to see that through our strong opposition and persuasion the government has seen fit to indicate it will be introducing an amendment --

Mr. Nixon: Even the New Democratic Party has come around to our point of view.

Mr. Bradley: -- which will bring even the NDP on side in this issue of 37 days. Obviously, the 30 days would favour those of us who are incumbents and since there are more incumbents, at least at this time, on the government side than there are on the opposition side, that favouring of the government side becomes more obvious.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but they are elderly.

Mr. Bradley: It is also true that government members, generally speaking, would be more aware of when an election is going to be held, in particular those in the Premier's office and in the cabinet, than would those of us on the opposition side and they would already have the advantage of being able to prepare for an election in a more elaborate fashion than those of us in opposition. Of course, they always have more money as well.

Looking at sections 12, 13 and 14, I am pleased to see we have a movement towards making it easier to vote. I often thought the Ontario Legislature almost went out of its way, and I will blame the government for this, to prevent people from voting. We somehow thought proxies were a problem until, finally, we realized that proxies were reasonable. Now we are making a more flexible timetable for obtaining proxies.

I think these kinds of moves that allow people the opportunity to get on the voters' list fairly late in the game and to vote are positive moves. Some people are not up to staying with the process of elections. They are happy to vote and happy to listen to the issues, but they are not always sure of the mechanics. This will help those who might otherwise be precluded from voting to avoid a situation where they are disenfranchised. I think that is reasonable.

I notice the 17th point in the explanatory notes says: "Landlords of buildings of 100 dwelling units or more, municipalities and school boards must, on the request of a returning officer, make premises under their control available as polling places."

It is most useful and convenient, particularly in apartment buildings, to have space available for a polling place. It encourages very much the use of the kind of buildings that make it easiest for people to vote. We have often found schools are very useful, although I know some principals are concerned that their schools are not made for voting places, that they are not conducive to it. I think, generally speaking, they are quite useful, and municipal offices from time to time can be useful.

I notice we are down to having 25 electors sign nomination papers. That was always silly previously, I thought. There might have been a good reason many years ago, although I cannot figure out what it was, for getting 100 signatures. What often happened was the nomination papers were brought to the nomination meeting of the particular candidate and the people there signed. We ended up getting people who were not necessarily electors in that district and the nomination papers were not set up as nicely as they might be.

In other cases, it was pushed off until the last minute and people on behalf of the candidate were scrambling to get people to sign the nomination papers. Having 25 electors sign is far more reasonable, but I notice we have a deposit of $200 now.

Mr. Nixon: Is that a payment or a deposit?

Mr. Bradley: What is our stand on this?

Mr. Nixon: We are very much in favour of it or whatever the member says.

Mr. Bradley: I think in this case, although one does not want to discourage people from running, what happens sometimes is we have frivolous candidates, Bozo the clown and others.

Mr. Nixon: Sometimes he gets elected.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Sometimes those from the established parties in this Legislature are referred to in less than complimentary terms, but at least they are candidates standing for the parties that are recognized in this province. It can happen in a list of candidates that some may have the same name. There may be a Thomas L. Wells, for instance, running in the riding of Scarborough North. We could have rigged up a candidate who is a frivolous candidate who, by some coincidence, has the same name. There are a lot of people in that riding now and there are likely to be a lot of people in that riding on the basis of the boundaries we will be using in the next election. So we could have someone, odd as it sounds, with the name Thomas L. Wells who wants to run just to have a detrimental effect on the present sitting member, and this $200 deposit might well discourage that person from trying it.

If one of the other parties were putting him up to it, as I am told was the case many years gone by in other jurisdictions, it indeed would be a problem, but I think we can probably live with a $200 deposit. It is not saying that only the rich can run; it is saying that a person must be reasonably serious about putting his or her name on the ballot.

Mr. Gillies: Make the rich pay.

Mr. Bradley: "Make the rich pay" is what someone said across the floor. I think that was a favourite slogan of certain candidates in the 1979 election. It appears the federal government is moving in that direction at the present time.

I could go on to talk about many provisions of this particular legislation, but since others have had the chance to dwell on those I will not go into them in great detail.

I note in section 6 of the Legislative Assembly Act that after July 1, 1986, British subjects who are not Canadian citizens will not be qualified to sit and vote as members of the assembly. I have often wondered if people know who is defined as a British subject. Someone once said that Idi Amin would fit the category of a British subject and had he been residing in Ontario at one time he would have been able to vote.

Obviously the government sees that possibility but certainly did not want to incur the wrath of those British subjects who are now in Ontario by making that change earlier, as the former member for Kitchener used to discuss at some length in this House. I think he even used to table some legislation in that regard.

Extending to disabled electors the provision permitting the ballot of an elector who is blind to be marked by a friend is also positive. We are looking at the legislation. I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the House Leader of the government, indicated many of these in his opening statement on this. What we are trying to do is to make it more possible for people to exercise their franchise and to vote in elections, and there are disabled people who are in a position of being unable to mark a ballot, not just because of blindness but for other reasons. I think it is a positive step that they should be able to enjoy the same rights others have.

I am disappointed that no provision has been written into the Election Act that government advertising be prohibited during an election campaign that is of 37 days' duration, except in extreme circumstances. Saskatchewan, I understand, has this.

If one watched the media during the last provincial election, one saw a lot of advertisements that had a political connotation. Objective observers have said that.

I have said on many occasions in this House that the government already has the greatest advantage. It has more money as a party than we have; the governing party generally has more money. It has the power to make decisions to drop cheques out of airplanes across the various ridings in the province. It has the power to make announcements of a nonmonetary nature that would enhance the position of the government. It can make statements of some import in the House or, when the House is no longer sitting, in the countryside, statements that, because the government can exercise this power, are of particular significance.

It has a civil service working for it that in some cases, particularly those closest to the ministers, works more in tune with keeping the government in power than with keeping the province rolling. This certainly is not the case throughout the civil service; I think all of us know this and we would all want to concede it, but there are many in the senior levels of civil service who I am sure know that their jobs rest on certain ministers being returned and they are not about to reveal information that is going to affect them adversely.

I am describing some of the considerable power they have on the other side. In addition, there is advertising. In the last federal campaign, I saw some advertisements that did not do the government much good. These ads conveyed the thought that we are supposed to love Canada. They were designed to make people feel good about Canada. That is similar to what happened in the last provincial election here.

A progressive step, which I would have applauded enthusiastically, would have been if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had included a provision in this legislation to prevent government advertising during the campaign, except for a medical alert or something like that which would be very useful. A lot of the government's advertising is self-serving, self-congratulatory and not of much benefit to the people in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Those people are the biggest advertisers, per capita, of any government in North America.

Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to see changes to the Election Act. I would have liked to have seen a few more.

The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) should have some time to speak briefly on this.

Concerning the 44 days in the winter, northern members tend to see that as more of a problem than those in urban municipalities. I would not want to see it diminish to fewer than 37 days. That amount of time gives us a chance to have extensive discussions on the issues in a campaign. It also provides a little more of an advantage for those who are not incumbents seeking places in the legislative chamber in Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of short comments on Bill 17. Our colleagues have dealt with many of the issues extensively. I do not want to repeat the issues, except to make short comments. On the matter of the allotted hours for the polling stations, I am happy to see the polls will now open at 9 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. as in the past. I am very glad the 37-day election period has been kept and not shortened, as was the government's intention prior to today. The matter of British subjects has been clarified, but not until after the next election. We are all aware why the government has decided to wait one election. It feels it would be politically advantageous to itself.

On the matter of the $200 a candidate must put forward and the 25 signatures from electors; that is fine. If it takes $200 to keep frivolous candidates out of the election process, that is one thing, but when did we give ourselves the right to decide whether or not frivolous candidates should be involved? That is something I have not fully been able to justify to myself.

In a free and democratic society, do we have the right to say to a candidate from the Rhinoceros Party or the Green Party of Ontario or somebody else who might be considered frivolous, "You cannot run unless you put up the $200;" and if they do not have it to say, "You are out of luck"? When did we give ourselves that right? We are treading on something dangerous. It has not reached the point of danger yet, but I am sorry to see that in the bill. I can understand why, but I am not sure we can justify it.

5:50 p.m.

As for having 100 people sign a sheet for nomination, I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The fact it is reduced is fine, but the matter of getting 100 people involved, getting 100 names signed to support a candidate, bodes well for the election process. It gets people involved. From the speeches I heard today, it seems we are all trying to raise the dismal average voter turnout we have had here in Ontario. Last time 51 per cent or 52 per cent of the population voted, a terrible record. In my view, reducing the number of people that have to sign the candidate's form for nomination does not help that situation at all.

I want to take a moment to comment on the point raised by my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) concerning government advertising and the amount of money that can be spent during a campaign period. The government House leader will recall that three or four years ago, right after the last provincial election campaign, I introduced a comprehensive bill in the House. It dealt with government advertising, advertising by crown corporations, the amount of money a political party could spend and the amount of money a particular candidate could spend. A lot of other areas were very thoughtfully covered in my private bill, if I do say so myself, and I am sorry to see none of those comments were incorporated.

They were not incorporated because the government might feel they were somehow impinging on its election campaign and strategy. It is disgraceful to have the government spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to promote itself during that 37-day period. It spends many millions of dollars on its election campaigns. To think it actually has to use government advertising, paid for by the taxpayers, to further its election results -- as far as it is concerned in a positive direction -- is distasteful. In the future this may arouse enough public dissension that even some Progressive Conservative members may be defeated over the fact that people are fed up with and tired of the government trying to buy their votes with their own money.

This is my last comment, because I know we are short of time. Tabled in the House yesterday were the new boundaries proposed by the commission I want to say again how dissatisfied I am with the commission's report. To give some ridings in southern Ontario 71,000 constituents and to have the average at about 63,000 is unconscionable. That my constituents should have their votes diluted by several thousand is unfair and undemocratic. With those comments, I will take my seat.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add a few words on Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act. I was looking forward to some reform legislation in this area. When one looks at the bill itself, some of the changes are accepted by honourable members on this side.

I was looking for some major changes in the area of electoral reform, although perhaps not based upon the Westminster model, and wanted to suggest to the minister responsible for the bill that we should have some consideration or debate and the review of the matter of fixed-term elections in a special committee of the Legislature. Some may say we do not want to follow that American practice in the election of representatives to the House of Commons, to the Senate or even to the Ontario Legislature. There should be some discussion of that.

When I was elected in 1967, there were five provincial elections in a period of 10 years. When we talk about the days of restraint, five elections in about 10 years can be costly to the candidates, to the particular panics involved in the elections and to taxpayers in general. Right now, under the present system, the taxpayer is picking up quite a share of the cost of running elections.

I thought the minister responsible would be bringing in some legislation in this area to consider a fixed term. It was about two years ago that we introduced fixed elections for municipalities, moving them from one year to two years to a three-year term. If we go back to the elections we have had since 1967, the average term of the Legislature has been just over three years and six months or something like that -- less than four years. Surely if we can move into the area of municipal and school board elections and provide a fixed term of every three years, this government and the Legislature itself should consider fixed-term elections in Ontario.

We all know there are advantages to having elections called at the whim of the government in power. I thought the election this year would have been held some time in November. I had all my election signs; I had been nominated and was ready to go. Then you sit and wait in anticipation and you wonder: "What are those fellows over there going to do? Are they going to wait until 1985 or 1986?" I do not think that is fair to the general public or to the voters in Ontario.

As my colleague mentioned previously, the voter turnout is not that great -- about 51 per cent -- and there are a great many areas we can improve upon. With the three-year term for local municipalities, more people have gone out to cast their ballot during a municipal election, and perhaps we can do that with fixed-term elections in the province.

The commission on boundary changes was also mentioned. I have seen the proposals for the riding of Erie. When I was first elected in 1967 the riding was called Welland South. In 1975 it was changed to Erie and now the proposal is to call it Niagara South. I hope I can be the first to be elected in Welland South in 1967, the first to be elected in Erie in 1975 and continue that trend in Niagara South. I am sure I can do that

The change is made by dealing with numbers. I do not think that is quite fair, either. I think of many persons representing a number of municipalities who may have 15 or 20, or they may have half a dozen. We can have somebody who is in a confined area that is five miles square. The government wanted to reduce an election campaign to 30 days. When areas are large you have to have the 37 days. One can agree with that in the bill.

The recommendation is to change the riding of Erie to include part of the riding of Niagara Falls. I appeared before that commission, and one of the arguments I put forward was to give back to the riding of Erie what we had in the 1971 election. That riding has now lost some 14,000 people. Changing it to include part of the riding of Niagara Falls means that 2,000 or 3,000 more citizens will be on the voters' lists for that riding. I suggested that we get back part of Dain City, which was part of the former township of Humberstone. The chairman of the commission said, "We do not like to divide up municipalities into different ridings;" but they came right back and this is what they have done and I do not think it is quite fair.

The argument I have made, and I have said this before in the House, is that when we go by householders, and this is what the grants are all about, nobody takes into consideration the 45 miles of shoreline in the riding of Erie. There are 3,500 additional householders who cannot be put on the voters' lists and cannot be included as part of the census because they are either Americans or landed immigrants who do not qualify, yet all the amenities of life are required for those persons too.

In the original proposal on the boundary changes it was suggested that Erie should take in the town of Dunnville under regional government and include four townships. I know that --

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could remind the honourable member that we have permitted a certain amount of latitude during the debate. However, we are discussing Bill 17.

Mr. Haggerty: That is correct.

Mr. Ruston: We are not discussing redistribution.

Mr. Haggerty: I know I am not on redistribution, but it deals with elections.

The Deputy Speaker: On two or three occasions --

Mr. Haggerty: The hour is 6 o'clock and we will probably adjourn the debate.

Mr. Nixon: Can we finish this at 8 o'clock?

Mr. Breaugh: Way to go; you talked it out.

The Deputy Speaker: Can I have clarification from the member? Did I hear the member just say he moved adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, he could continue over the supper hour.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, Orders and Notices provides we start Bill 82 at 8 o'clock.

On motion by Mr. Haggerty, the debate was adjourned.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983;

Bill 58, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Payments in Lieu of Taxes to Municipalities;

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act;

Bill 91, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act;

Bill 102, An Act respecting the Sale of Lands for Arrears of Municipal Taxes;

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 132, An Act to amend the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1980;

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act;

Bill 148, An Act respecting certain land in the Township of Marathon in the District of Thunder Bay;

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Marquis Video Corporation;

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the London Regional Gallery;

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of London;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Oshawa Young Women's Christian Association;

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Chartered Industrial Designers;

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Nepean;

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Belleville;

Bill Pr3 1, An Act respecting the United Jewish Welfare Fund;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario;

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the Town of Iroquois Falls.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

November 27, 1984