Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jun-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) said the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) had misled the House. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order and one that may be, as well, a point of privilege in regard to this very matter.

I would draw your attention to page 138, chapter 10, of the 18th edition of Erskine May --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked the honourable member to withdraw the remarks, which were totally out of order.

Mr. Peterson: Hear him out on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to him, yes, but first I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have on occasion stood in my place and asked other members to withdraw similar words because they do offend, presumably, dignity and honour in this Legislature.

However, I find myself drawing to your attention page 138 of Erskine May, under the heading, "Misconduct of Members or Officers of Either House as Such," and in smaller letters, "Deliberately Misleading the House."

It says: "The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

"In 1963, the House resolved that, in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of a grave contempt."

For those who are interested in such arcane things, that was the John Profumo case.

I submit to the members that on three occasions yesterday the Treasurer, perhaps inadvertently, although I find it difficult to understand how it could be inadvertent, gave this House and the standing committee on resources development misleading information. He may not have done it deliberately, but what he told us was not correct.

In the resources development committee, the Treasurer, in trying to defend his expansion of the retail sales tax, said: "We did not move in the area of personal income tax. This tax had been increased in the 1980 budget but, more importantly, the federal budget had thrown a cloud of confusion and uncertainty around it."

In the 1981 budget of this same Treasurer, he said: "I am proposing that Ontario's rate of personal income tax be increased from 44 per cent of basic federal tax to 48 per cent. . . The effective tax rate for the 1981 taxation year will be 46 per cent." He went on to say that in the taxation year of 1982 that would go to 48 per cent of the federal base.

Obviously the Treasurer did do something about the personal income tax this year. It is almost as if he is recommending retroactive virginity because he did do it with his ad valorem personal income tax raise last year.

I will not dwell on the fact that yesterday, on the second point, the Treasurer stated in this House, and it is in the Instant Hansard, "Even the polls would tell me that I should not do it." He was referring to the expansion of the retail sales tax. "There were no polls telling me to broaden the sales tax base, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it."

Mr. Speaker, I raised with you yesterday the fact that we have a copy of the Goldfarb poll taken by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics in 1980, about six months before the suggestion in the 1981 budget that the retail sales tax base would be expanded. Again, it is a clear contradiction and the facts are evident.

This is the third and last point: Yesterday during oral questions the Treasurer said in response to my leader, "I would suggest that it was never the spirit nor intent of taxing purchased meals in a restaurant to charge people who are in their own residence."

In the retail sales tax branch information bulletin dated May 13, 1982, which may be a date he will recall since it is the day the budget came out, it says: "Where any of the above establishments sell prepared food products through a cafeteria, vending machine, etc., tax applies. Schools and universities that charge for prepared food products at the beginning of the term are required to collect seven per cent retail sales tax on such amounts."

I appreciate the Treasurer is in disarray and is in confusion looking for a way out to save face, but I suggest the facts as I have stated them are on the public record, and the Treasurer has a responsibility to rise in his place, say that he was wrong and apologize for misleading the Legislature.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as all that may be, it is rather irrelevant to the request I have made because the language you have used in this House is just not acceptable by anybody --

Mr. Roy: He did not say "deliberately misleading," just "misleading."

Mr. Speaker: It does not really matter. I am not going to accept it, and I will ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Roy: The precedent. Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing to discuss.

Mr. Roy: There is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Roy: You're not prepared to listen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have entreated other honourable members to withdraw those words. I withdraw them, sir, but I can tell you I am most distressed. I am very upset about the integrity in this place when the Treasurer can make statements like this that are patently untrue and they stand on the public record, not once, not twice, but three times in one day. I suggest we have to find a remedy for this or the integrity and the honesty of all of us are impugned.

Mr. Speaker: We have been over this many times. I will tell all honourable members that the Speaker is not going to be put into the position of making a judgement. It is not my role and it is not my responsibility. Members know as well as I that it is the responsibility of the House. There are measures to be employed if the House desires to use them.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when a situation like this occurs, the Treasurer has some responsibility to respond. I can see there is not much you can do about it, but the man is sitting here in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Again, it is not for me to be put into the position of judging.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, what do you make of standing order 19(d)10 which states clearly that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he "charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood." My colleague has said repeatedly that he did not accuse the minister of deliberately misleading the House. He said it could have been inadvertent or otherwise.

It has been my impression that consistently in the federal House the word "misleading" is used, but it is when it is used with the word "deliberately" that it becomes offensive and against the rules of debate. Do we have a different level of "misleading" here than in the federal House or are we going to be consistent and try to follow subsection 10 of the standing order?

Mr. Speaker: We are going to be consistent here. We are going to follow our standing orders. If I may, I refer all honourable members to the transcript of the remarks that were made yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind and there is no doubt in the recording of the remarks what the honourable member said.

Mr. Roy: Did he say "deliberate"?

Mr. Speaker: He does not have to. He said "misled" and that is it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record, and I appreciate my colleague withdrawing his comments, the effective rate of income tax effective July 1, 1981, was 48 per cent. The polls he referred to were 1980 polls. We were discussing the 1982 budget. There is no question that the bulletin issued by the Ministry of Labour on May 13, 1982, talked about those meals. Many bulletins that are rushed out have been adjusted in the past the moment --

Mr. T. P. Reid: We all know what you're doing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second. The members have asked me to listen to reasoned argument. I have listened to reasoned argument. I thought the arguments made in favour of residences, which I was unaware of, and I said that, were reasonable. They were not within the spirit and intent; therefore, they were changed. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask me to listen to reason and then claim that I am misleading the House.

TRANSLATION SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege: This affects not only my privileges as a member but those of all Franco-Ontarians. It concerns again the translation services offered to members of the Legislature and the public service.

Today I telephoned the Social Assistance Review Board of this province and was told a decision of that board made on April 15 has not yet been published because translation services are not available in order to inform my constituents of the results of that hearing.

Apparently there has been a delay of some three weeks because they cannot get this translation. I was informed of this by the office of the Social Assistance Review Board today and I certainly would want the government to make comments on that point of privilege because it does affect us all.

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be better dealt with at the appropriate time when you may ask a question of the minister responsible.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL BUDGET

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker I have a very brief observation to make prior to tomorrow's meeting in Ottawa. It is not my intent to comment in any depth on the budget of last evening. I think it was clear to all of those who were watching or listening that the document last night had, in fairness, some strengths and some very obvious weaknesses.

From our perspective, much of our concern relates to the very broad and all-encompassing nature of the economic challenge that faces the citizens of not just any single province, but quite frankly, of all of this country.

In some respects last night's document was not insensitive to some of those challenges but there were also some serious structural issues that will have to be addressed tomorrow. It will be my intent tomorrow to represent this province from the standpoint that I think people are looking for leadership from their governments, leadership that at this moment in our history sets aside partisan distinction, and a degree of leadership that will make economic stability an absolute priority, that must be pursued through all reasonable measures and initiatives consistent with the order and confidence that is essential to sustain economic recovery, and that with social harmony.

I will also be suggesting that perhaps not all of the issues have been put on the table by the government of our country. There may be some that could be reviewed seriously tomorrow by all of those who have the duty of governing in this country so that we are all apprised of the opportunities for joint action that we cannot and must not ignore.

My concern about separating out just the public sector remains. My concern for across-the-board equity that addresses issues like costs and prices has not evaporated. My concerns about the serious debt situation crippling really all of the players in the economy of the country, together with the need to replace that debt with new equity and the lack of any global response in the budget to the equity-debt issue, remain priorities for us.

Not to maximize the situation, I think it would be foolish of us not to face up to the fact that we are experiencing something that can be described as more than passing difficulty. What is required is some clear and resolute leadership. I think tomorrow's discussions will determine, to a certain extent at least, how our country will come to grips with the present situation.

Being as objective as one must be in this position -- although the temptation to be less than objective is very great -- the budget last night could have been worse in some respects, but in terms of deficit, in terms of broad economic stability and the factor of confidence that I must confess I have been referring to for some weeks now, the budget of last evening could have been substantially better.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and other ministers of the crown are evaluating in a particular sense the details and the detailed implications of last evening's budget and they will continue to do so. We will make our judgement on the merit of each proposal and we will ask our colleagues in other parts of this country to do the same. Once the government of this province makes that assessment and determines the results of the discussions tomorrow, which I hope will be done in some meaningful national sort of consensus, I will take the members of this House into our full confidence.

2:20 p.m.

I say most sincerely to the members opposite, the gravity of what our country faces at this moment requires that all of us set aside our natural historical instincts, recriminations and opportunities to assess responsibility and blame. It would be very easy for me and for the Treasurer to follow that route, but I think that sort of backbiting and bickering should be set aside for another time and another place.

The economic recovery we so earnestly seek will have to be earned. Our assessment is that there is no quick or easy solution. But we also believe, and I have said this on many occasions, there can be progress, there can be compassion and there can be economic opportunity for all Canadians, if we do it right. Doing it right requires, above all, a clear sense of the reality and a will to ensure fairness and balance in what we do.

Those, generally, are the perspectives or the points of view that I shall be bringing to the deliberations in Ottawa, which I believe start at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WAGE CONTROLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier: I am sure those words will be very helpful in the discussions which he is having in Ottawa tomorrow.

Do I interpret from his remarks today supporting his call for clear and resolute leadership by all the Premiers and all across this country, that he is in favour of controls in the private sector as well? Would the Premier indicate his opinion on this, since I would find that difficult to understand when he has indicated publicly he is not very happy about public sector wage controls? What will be his position, understanding that he wants to be clear and resolute in those meetings tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition what I believe and that the items I wish to raise -- and I seek his understanding -- will be those matters I will put before the other first ministers starting at 10 o'clock tomorrow.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure that will be very helpful, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is calling for nonpartisan contributions to this discussion. He said that it is so very easy for him to criticize the federal government. I want to assure him that it is awfully easy for us to criticize the provincial government as well.

If he takes that position forward and decides to support controls, would he make sure that they are rateably and fairly applied, so that those at the lower end of the income scale have a greater advantage than those at the upper end of the income scale? In that case he will not be restricting to a six per cent increase a person who makes $15,000, for example, at the same time that he is asking the employee in the public service who earns $75,000 or $100,000 to accept six per cent. Would he support that kind of equity and fairness?

Would he at the same time in his discussions with his confreres take forward to Ottawa the position that he has to do his share here in Ontario to control the prices of the things he is responsible for, particularly Ontario Hydro, which should be held at the six per cent level this year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition was asking a series of questions, actually. I can only say to him that he was very close to provoking me in his observations about his own position vis-à-vis his federal party, and the utterances by the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and others in light of --

Mr. Peterson: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition I think it is pretty picayune. I think it is a very illegitimate excuse for his lack of success in Hamilton West to be blaming somebody other than himself and his own lack of party policy. Quite frankly, I think it is very cheap politics, and I have no hesitation in saying so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people who are trying to dissociate yourselves: I tell you, it does not work in the long run. We all saw them sitting next door --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never referred to our national party or our national leader as being a millstone around my neck. The Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed. I was on the hustings with John Diefenbaker, Bob Stanfield and Joe Clark, and I will be there again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you are embarrassed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Two points of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier obviously is not answering the question; and second, can you explain --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can you explain to me, Mr. Speaker, why Joe Clark calls Bill Davis "Brutus Bill"?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the supplementary, probably for the same reason that Herb Gray, who sat beside the member's new leader at their convention, is now wondering why in heaven's name he gave him his support. And what does his brother -- I mean, the member for Rainy River is talking about close relatives; he should not raise that question with me. What does he think the other Peterson in public life in this country is thinking today? What about the other Reid?

Who is Brutus? I would say the member for Rainy River is Brutus.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think we will hear the supplementary from the member for Hamilton East.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just remind the honourable members that the clock is running.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, if we can cut through the barracking from my right, I would like to ask the Premier what I think is the serious basic question. Given his rather firm position against penalizing the ordinary workers of Ontario and the public service workers stated as recently as January 26 this year, is he not prepared to maintain in the first ministers' meeting tomorrow the fairness of Ontario's position in ensuring that the public service workers, at six per cent and five per cent, are not going to be bearing the brunt of the battle against inflation and the restraint battle in this country?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asks a question in which, in general terms, I must differentiate between my own feelings and what ultimately emerges from the federal budget. I made the observation about singling out "the public sector," I think, last January; my point of view on that as a matter of personal approach has not altered. I am also sure the member sensed in the Treasurer's budget something that obviously escaped the Leader of the Opposition: that by limiting members of this House -- with the members' consent, obviously -- together with the senior public service we did recognize, even though he missed it, the fact that we had addressed the people at the higher income levels. I know it is not hard for the Leader of the Opposition to ignore something as simple as that.

In answer to the member for Hamilton East, I would also point out that while the Leader of the Opposition -- and I know the member is interested in this, as is the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) -- knows the very complex nature of saying to Ontario Hydro, "You will have to limit your rate increase," the alternative to that is to go out into the market, which means, as a result of the close to $20-billion deficit announced last night, the government of Canada is going to be into the market with both feet, making it extremely difficult for those other agencies to get money in that marketplace.

I know the member for York South will understand that.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I certainly understand how the Premier feels uncomfortable taking the high road. But given the fact he has not taken a definite stand on a federal budget since the Crosbie budget, would he be prepared to tell us now what his view will be? Is he saying again to my friend the member for Hamilton East that he is now going to be suggesting private sector wage controls as well? Is that his position?

I understand he has these very strong feelings, but what is going to be his position? If he goes along with controls, will he support a sliding scale right across the board as well as price restraints?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the Leader of the Opposition likes to take the odd low blow. I would only say to him, sure I find it difficult on occasion not to be partisan, but I have learned how to do it. It is something that even in his limited time he should also have learned. It is about time he attempted to take the high road on the odd occasion. I have already answered his question.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. It appears, as a result of last night's budget and the partial indexation of personal income tax, the province of Ontario will receive a windfall, unanticipated in his budget, of some $100 million.

Given that, would he use that $100 million or so to withdraw some of the regressive taxes he put in through the Retail Sales Tax Act? For example, with $100 million he could withdraw the tax on prepared food under $6.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it may have escaped the Leader of the Opposition's attention that this change occurs in the next fiscal year, not this one. Therefore, it does not affect the revenues during this current year.

The fact remains that in this current year I have had notified change involving a reduction of $290 million, but also a retroactive change in established programs financing transfers of close to $200 million because, I am told, of an alleged overpayment in a previous fiscal year. I would suggest that the loss of $490 million of hoped-for revenue from the federal side has had a serious effect upon my revenues.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer has a lot of bureaucrats who figure these things out. Sometimes he gets overpayments; sometimes there have been underpayments. There have been times in the past when he has had gratuitous windfalls from Ottawa; their calculations were different because there is a lag. I understand that and so does he.

But the reality is he should have anticipated there would be a bookkeeping question. He has his own bureaucrats making these calculations and he should have been aware in factoring that into his own budget. He has known that for a couple of weeks anyway. The reality is he cannot hang his response on that argument. The reality is he is going to be getting more money from the federal government as a result of this and it gives him a perfectly legitimate opportunity to withdraw some of his regressive taxes and at least put them on the progressive tax system. Will he do it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They are in the next fiscal year, not in this current fiscal year.

If I read the signs in the federal budget clearly -- and I believe I am learning to read the somewhat oblique language used by Mr. MacEachen from time to time -- he implied that not only would salaries be lower next year, at a six per cent and a five per cent rate, but the transfers to the provinces would be lower and probably at a six per cent rate also.

May I suggest to the member that until I have had an opportunity to find out if that is fact, I would be very unwise to be cutting my revenue sources.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the Treasurer not at least make the commitment today that he will withdraw the sales tax on those essential items that are necessary simply for the carrying on of life, such as food, sanitary supplies and groceries? Will he not withdraw at least that part of his sales tax?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, during the committee hearings we are having, I am sure it will be made abundantly clear to many of the members of the committee that a number of the items that were restored to tax this year, such as sanitary supplies, were taxed until 1974. I was not the originator of that tax.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, regarding my leader's first question about the $290-million shortfall, has the Treasurer ever thought that he has had a bellyful of the window into the oil business through Suncor? Why does he not peddle that, dump it on the market for half price, get his money back and try to do something for the people of Ontario right now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it strains my credibility to follow the first question into the second.

I think the honourable member will find there is a great deal of support for the presence of Ontario in that particularly sensitive business.

Currently there are slowdowns in the price increase in oil -- in fact, there are reductions on the world markets -- so it would seem the trend is already reversing.

One of my fears, and I am sure it is a fear of many of us here, is that we in Canada can be lulled into avoiding investment in megaprojects because there appears to be oil on the market, only to wake up tomorrow to find the chance has passed us by and we do not have enough to meet our industrial needs.

PERSONAL INCOME TAX INCREASE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the combination of his budget and last night's federal budget will mean an additional cost of $500 per year to the average family in this province?

If the Treasurer is aware of that, is he also aware of the implication this has for consumer buying power and therefore for job creation and the recovery of the economy in this province? To get our economy moving, is he prepared to roll back the personal income tax increase, the sales taxes and the Ontario health insurance plan premium increases?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has an infinite belief that if one does not pay his bills, one does not pay sooner or later.

I would suggest that we ran the deficit up as far as prudent management would permit us this year. There is always a risk that revenues will not match our expectations at present because of the state of the economy.

Unlike the honourable member's party, I think even the Liberals will accept the fact that if we are spending money, either we have to raise it in the year we are spending it or we have to borrow to cover debts, which sooner or later means that future generations will pay. We have opted for a very careful balance between those two. A little less than 10 per cent of Ontario's spending will be borrowed this year, while 25 per cent of the federal government's spending will be borrowed this year.

Mr. Cooke: The Treasurer will be aware that, as has already been mentioned, the Liberal budget means a windfall of $100 million to his government. In his last budget, the Treasurer came to the defence of the private sector and stated: "I am proposing that certain federal proposals not be paralleled in the Ontario corporate income tax system. With these actions, the province will forgo an estimated $135 million in revenue in this fiscal year."

Will the Treasurer show the same consideration for Ontario families and not parallel the changes in the income tax system, thereby saving the people of this province some money?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member is my critic. Does he not know I have no control over the federal personal income tax rules?

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in his lecture to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Treasurer said either we have to tax for the money now or we have to borrow and pay it back ultimately. However, does the Treasurer's own performance in that area not ruin his credibility in view of the fact that he has borrowed close to $18 billion from pension funds, including about $10 billion from the Canada pension plan, and he has said he is not going to repay the $10 billion he has borrowed? Does that not give everybody the impression that there is endless money out there?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult for the Leader of the Opposition, as a Liberal, to understand that his government in Ottawa can borrow 25 per cent of its spending and be responsible, and that we are at nine per cent and are not. What is the difference? His federal government has been totally irresponsible at 25 per cent.

Our deficit right now is fewer months' income in total than it was in Mr. Frost's time. It is half as great right now as it was in Mr. Frost's time, and no one accused him of not being a good manager of this province. The present Premier (Mr. Davis) is a better one.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: The Treasurer will be aware that because of last night's cutbacks in help to senior citizens in the six per cent increase on old age pensions, those senior citizens with an income of over $6,351 will have their incomes reduced.

Are the Treasurer and his government prepared to stand firm on a commitment they state time and time again, that they care about senior citizens in this province, and are they willing to make up the difference that the federal Liberals are cutting back to these people in our province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It takes a bit of time for us to go through the ways and means motions but, if I heard Mr. MacEachen accurately last night, he said that the old age security payments will be limited to a six per cent increase next year. He then had a paragraph, as I recall, which said, "However, recipients of the guaranteed income supplement will be fully indexed and would make up the difference." That, to me, would indicate that people who had no private source of income did not lose anything.

Ontario in turn has the guaranteed annual income supplement. Gains has been tied closely to GIS. I am not about to say what we will do at this point until we see the details of Mr. MacEachen's budget. I want to assure the member of one thing: we believe, and we believe senior citizens agree with us, that we have treated them fairly and equitably over the last few years.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from last night's federal budget that the Liberals have abandoned this province and abandoned the manufacturing sector of our economy. The Treasurer must be aware that without new provincial programs the layoffs will continue, the plant closures will continue and the downturn in the economy will continue in this province.

Is the Treasurer now prepared to bring in new job creation programs and a long-term industrial strategy to turn around the problems in the manufacturing sector of this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said earlier that the temptation in these forums to attack each other on straight political grounds is real. For me to stand up and say anything good about a federal budget is not my ilk or my nature. I have found it convenient and the member has found it convenient to find out what was wrong with it.

I suggest to him that self-fulfilling prophecy has a great deal of reality these days. If he goes around talking like that long enough and does not try to work to solve problems, he may find he has the very problems he is trying to help create. I do not know what kind of a party it is over there that would rather see people unemployed than work with the federal government to solve the problems, but they are it.

Mr. Cooke: How can the Treasurer get up and make a silly statement like that when last night's federal budget said nothing about the automobile sector, nothing about the steel industry, nothing about furniture, nothing about machinery, basically nothing about the manufacturing sector in this province? How can the Treasurer defend that and why will he not bring in programs to turn around the problems in that sector, because obviously the Liberals have abandoned the manufacturing sector?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The one part of the budget I found immediately reassuring, and felt they had perhaps even read mine to some degree, was they understood that one of the greatest needs in Canada, certainly in Ontario, was to create housing and the jobs that go with it. I am delighted to see them piggyback on the Ontario program and broaden the base somewhat.

I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is looking at the implications of the federal program. I suggest that if $5,000 helps sell some new houses, $8,000 is going to help sell some more. Just about every job in that $8,000 in those houses is in Ontario, be it the procurement of lumber, the purchase of new furniture for the house, the purchase of new appliances for the house, whatever; those are jobs that will be created here in Ontario and will put back to work people who in turn can buy cars.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given that within the Treasurer's own budget the main provision to assist business was the two-year tax recess, and given that witnesses who have appeared before the committee with respect to sales tax have responded to him that the majority of businesses in this province are not worrying about whether they are going to pay tax or not but whether they are going to survive, is he prepared now to adjust his budget to do something to help the businesses in this province that are really struggling to survive, and not worry about whether they have to pay tax or not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look through Hansard but if the member could show me where the witnesses said that yesterday, I would appreciate it very much.

Mr. Cooke: The Treasurer may feel enthused about last night's budget and may feel there was some confidence put back into the business sector, but how can he support any part of a budget that does not address two central problems in the economy: high interest rates and the structural difficulties in the economy?

Will he go on record today -- I asked him the question yesterday and I hope today he will give an answer -- that his government at the first ministers' conference will say to the Prime Minister of this country that Gerald Bouey must lower the interest rates, and if he does not then he should be fired?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, the ideal world the member lives in does not exist on the outside. I wish he could start to understand it. If that is done unilaterally, the member knows darned well the money will flood out of this country and bring us down a lot faster. What was done and what has to be done is to bring inflation in this country to a level that justifies interest rates that are lower.

In the meantime, whether I like it or not, there are several interesting suggestions in the budget and several useful actions in the budget -- actions that will help farmers in distress, actions that will help farmers who are expanding, actions that will help small businessmen who are expanding to get money at market less four per cent.

Those are steps that are only useful as a bridging mechanism until such time as the market comes down. Whether it comes down or not, I am afraid will depend mightily upon the wisdom of the federal government's application of its other programs.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question that was asked yesterday by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I note he is not in the Legislature today. He will probably want to ask a supplementary to it, so with your permission I would defer the answer until tomorrow.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier concerning the closing of the Madawaska mine. As the Premier can likely see, today our galleries are full of people from the Bancroft area who have come up to meet with him at 4 p.m. They have been up here on two previous occasions and met with people from Ontario Hydro, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). They are looking for an answer as to whether or not they are going to be able to keep their mine open.

These people are here looking for the Premier's help. We have not had any questions from the New Democratic Party to support them. We have not had any questions from the government people, although I see that many of the members in the back row are wearing buttons. I would ask the Premier: If I send this button over to him would he wear it and would he also tell us what he proposes to do this afternoon to keep that mine open?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honour- able member would like to send the button over, I would be delighted to receive it. I would only point out to him, so that the very distinguished visitors in our gallery will not misunderstand, that while I appreciate the rhetoric by the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) and the fact that he has asked a question, asking a question does not, by itself, indicate a solution.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), who has been constantly discussing this issue with the ministers and with me, has more than adequately represented the concern of his constituents. He may not shout as loudly as the member for Quinte but, believe it or not, he can be heard and is probably more effective.

Mr. Cooke: What is he suggesting? What is his solution?

Mr. O'Neil: Somebody has to shout for them.

Mr. Sweeney: Where is he? Let's hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really cannot hear the member's shouts over his leader's or the member for Kitchener-Wilmot's interjections. I wish he would discipline his own colleagues so I could more properly hear the observations he wishes to make.

2:50 p.m.

I have arranged to meet with the group from Bancroft. I personally met with some of them some weeks ago, a group headed by a number of very distinguished people including Father Maloney. I expect Father Maloney will be with them again today and I am meeting them at four o'clock. I cannot give the member any more information until that meeting takes place.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier a question that was put to me out front at about one o'clock today by one of the workers from the mine. It is a rather interesting question and I would like him to offer a response.

This worker wanted to know why this government would pay out unemployment benefits to hundreds of miners and, with the resultant spinoffs of unemployment in Bancroft and throughout the region, hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional unemployment benefits, rather than giving Madawaska Mines a reasonable chance to stay in business.

Why would the Premier not help the miners, when the dollar cost of doing nothing may be just as large as the cost of keeping Madawaska open? Why would he continue the hurt and not help these people when the dollar cost may be about the same?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish it were as simple as that. I have every sympathy for the people from Bancroft. I know some of them. I have known Father Maloney probably as long as anyone in this House; perhaps longer.

I would say to the honourable member that we do not pay unemployment insurance. I am sure he knows that. This government does not pay out unemployment insurance, and I know the member made that very clear to him. I am sure he seized the opportunity to explain that.

I am also sure, knowing the constructive nature in which he approaches these issues, he seized the opportunity to explain to him the proposal by the Minister of Natural Resources whereby certain programs could be developed utilizing the payments from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to promote some job creation. I know he conveyed that message to him.

I would make it clear that we are not insensitive to the difficulties being experienced by the people of the Bancroft community. We know the problems that are being created. It does not minimize the difficulty that we have as a government, though, in resolving the issue. I make that very clear.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier prepared to share with the House the suggestions made by the member for Hastings-Peterborough to maintain the operation of Madawaska Mines, and if his solution is not a good one, is he prepared to use his influence with Ontario Hydro to see a further period of production to maintain that mine, given the current desperate situation for jobs in Ontario? If that is not the option, then there should be a clear statement so that the people are not kept hanging on a string as to what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness the people in the Bancroft area should know as soon as possible just what could be done. Because they are here listening in advance of the discussions, I do not want to build any false expectations.

I have said to the representatives of the group, at the request of the member for Hastings-Peterborough, that I was more than prepared to meet with them and I shall do so. I cannot really speculate beyond that meeting at this point.

MUNICIPAL JOB CREATION PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister is aware that the June 30 initial allocation date for the new program entitled the Ontario employment incentive program is near.

Is he aware that several municipalities are now preparing submissions for approval which are a long way away from the initially announced intentions to create jobs in a period of high unemployment and to accelerate the undertaking of repairs and renovations to public property? Is he aware of these proposals, such as those prepared by the city of London, and what is the attitude of his ministry towards proposals which may create some jobs but at the expense of existing jobs in municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that many municipalities are putting together submissions to the ministry, not only accepting the amount of money that has been allocated to each of their municipalities but indeed looking for considerably larger allocations, if possible.

I indicated in my note going out to the municipalities some weeks ago that whatever funds were not taken up by municipalities by the termination of the month of June would be reassigned to some of the others that had applied for them.

There are criteria established, which were announced in this House, as to how one qualifies for the money. One was to try to take as many people off the welfare rolls as possible; two was to have an impact on the unemployment insurance rolls; and three was to try to use up some of the student help when our young people have left places of education. Those were the criteria very clearly established. We did not say, and I want to emphasize again, that the supervisory people could not be full-time employees of the particular municipality in which the project was being undertaken.

Some municipalities have made inquiries of us about re-employing under this program some employees who have been laid off. I made it clear to them, if they are bona-fide layoffs as a result of either lack of money of the municipality or lack of work under the budgeting program, then they could very well qualify under this program, but they are not to go into the process of discharging employees to bring others back off the welfare rolls or employment rolls to qualify for participation in the Ontario employment incentive program.

Mr. Breaugh: We are in agreement with the original stated intention, which was clearly to provide for and accelerate the undertaking of repairs or renovations to public property. We are in agreement, as everyone is, with trying to provide some new jobs. But, as the deadline gets closer, is the minister prepared to accept that this definition is broad enough to cover job classifications in social services departments, in personnel divisions and in clerks' departments, involving transferring files and material to Lektriever machines, microfilming of documentation, and doing an inventory and bibliographic review, an accounting system, and building repairs and maintenance for things like a public library?

Are those matters not obviously ones that are quite a distance away from the minister's original clear criteria? Are those matters he is prepared to deal with now, and to accept? What is he prepared to do to assist those municipalities such as the city of London which are asking their municipal employees to reopen their agreements to allow for this kind of integrated approach?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not going to try to get into analysing London's application here this afternoon. Obviously I do not have it. But I would say very clearly to the members of this House that we set down the criteria. If they need it at the municipal level, they are eligible for the funding. If they do not, but if they can come in with some rationalization that they can use people within city hall -- I think we have had this discussion with one or two others -- we will not interfere with the union contracts.

It is not our intention to interfere with the union negotiations that have taken place in any municipality. But if they can use summer personnel or other personnel without interfering with union contracts, they can be our guests in doing so as long as it is creating employment for those on welfare, unemployment and so on.

MEMBER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade.

On June 16, he sent out a letter to some constituents in London South which read in part: "As you may know, I have been recently appointed Ontario's new Minister of Industry and Trade. Today I want to ask you what my priority should be in the months and years ahead." It then goes on to ask the readers to complete a questionnaire and to agree to serve on his special London South advisory board. "If you complete and return in the postage-paid envelope and join this invitation to my London South advisory board, I would be most pleased. I thank you on behalf of my wife, Harriet," etc.

I would ask, since this exercise is obviously a riding exercise rather than a ministry exercise, how the minister can justify using ministry letterhead, funds and staff for what is really a riding association exercise?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a riding exercise. Indeed, I intend to enlarge the number of people who would offer some advice to me on things they feel the province should do, and feel this ministry should do.

Mr. Van Horne: Included in the letter is this brief paragraph: "If you accept my invitation to join the board I will provide you with a special telephone number so that you may reach me, or a key member of my staff, if you want to discuss a particular topic of concern to you."

It strikes me that this is really an abuse of the telephone privileges we have. How can the minister justify that?

Hon. Mr. Walker: How can that be an abuse of telephone privileges if I allow not only constituents but also people from this province to get hold of me?

3 p.m.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. T. P. Reid: This may be her last one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bryden: Is the Premier considering the recommendation by Lynne Gordon, retiring head of the Ontario Status of Women Council, that he should designate one minister in the cabinet to be responsible for women's issues so that there is someone in the cabinet who, as she says, "will not let the ball drop when we are fighting an issue; someone who will fight on our behalf on both the policy-making level and the implementation level"?

Will the Premier show he really has a commitment to equality of treatment and of opportunity for women by naming a cabinet minister to carry out this role?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Isn't it a bit of an ironic question, since the NDP is trying to get her to resign?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not add anything to what the member for Rainy River is trying to say about the possible future of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). Is it really her last question? I cannot believe that. I cannot believe she would let those men in that caucus persuade her to leave public life to let another man into this House. I hope she will seize the occasion to stand up and tell us it is not true, she will never let it happen, because we will all support that point of view.

Mr. Foulds: Very statesmanlike. Very statesmanlike.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh now, come on. My friend should not lose his sense of humour. He was in good humour on Saturday; he should not lose it today.

Mr. Foulds: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a number of recommendations from Lynne Gordon. We will be reviewing all of them. The honourable member singled out a particular recommendation. I have not made my assessment of her recommendations yet. I shall be doing so. When the judgements are made, I will be delighted to convey those judgements or points of view to the member. I sincerely hope she is still here when I convey that information.

Ms. Bryden: I am glad the Premier finally did answer the question, but if he wants to facilitate the entry of our leader he could, of course, open one of his own seats.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bryden: Since Lynne Gordon expressed the view that most of the recommendations of the council are under "active consideration" by the government, can the Premier indicate which ones are likely to appear as legislation this session? Will he also accept Lynne Gordon's two recommendations for making the council more effective; namely, that the chairperson be full-time and that the research budget be raised from the present paltry figure of $15,000 so that the council could do a feasibility study on equal pay for work of equal value?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only prolong the discussions if I were to ask the member, when she wonders if we will accept the recommendation for a full-time chairperson, whether she is a candidate for that office. But I will not ask that.

I felt I had answered her question in the first instance. We are looking at all the recommendations. I cannot single out any particular ones. Quite obviously, there will be no changes before the spring session comes to a conclusion; I think the honourable member understands that. As to whether there will be something ready for the fall, if there are to be any changes that require legislation, I expect the fall is not that far away. I am not making any commitments, but we are taking it quite seriously. I told Lynne Gordon this at a rather pleasant farewell gathering just a few days ago.

I would also say to the member, if she wants to communicate to her leader, maybe the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) would like a little recreation in Lanark county. Is that the county she had in mind?

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Despite warnings by the Canadian Medical Association that premeditated rationing of health services may begin in the next few years, the minister continues to insist that health care in Ontario is not eroding.

Can the minister explain why last week in Hamilton, after Chedoke-McMaster Hospital was forced to close 35 beds as part of its summer cutback, a 73-year-old woman who had broken her hip was told by a doctor at emergency to go home without help because no bed was available in the city of Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I was meeting with the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council in Hamilton while the member was lying on the beach in Florida no doubt exchanging --

Ms. Copps: I got a report.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: While I was exchanging information with the district health council with regard to --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member for St. Catherines (Mr. Bradley) not care about health care in Hamilton?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: While I was chatting with the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council about the problem with beds in that area and the member was no doubt reviewing recent victory campaigns with General Galtieri in Miami, I did not hear a word --

Mr. Kerrio: She has some voters down there too, you know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was a tough campaign. I think both the general and the Health critic needed a week's holiday. I notice that even in retrospect General Galtieri did better than the Health critic for the Liberal Party.

An hon. member: He only came second.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about the hospital, not that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Grey- Bruce should take off his sunglasses and say that.

Last Monday, I met with the Hamilton Wentworth District Health Council. At that time I spent a good two to two and a half hours meeting with the representatives of the DHC. The hospitals are well represented on the DHC. I also spent another hour or an hour and a half meeting with the representatives of all the hospitals.

At no time did the people from any of the hospitals raise with me the problem of a shortage of beds in the Hamilton area. If later that week a doctor in a hospital in Hamilton sent a patient home for whatever reason -- and we do not know the real reason that doctor sent that patient home -- and attributed that to a decision by this government as opposed to a decision by the hospital or by the doctor in his professional capacity, then I must say this government cannot take responsibility for that. If there was a real problem, it should have been raised with me at the Hamilton-Wentworth DHC. That is what I was there for.

On Monday of last week, the Minister of Health had every reason to believe there was no problem in terms of numbers of beds in that area. Of course they indicated the pressures on the system, but they did not indicate they were unmanageable. They are manageable to the extent that doctors need to admit their patients on an emergency or urgent basis. If that was not done in this case, I must say I find it improper and inappropriate for a doctor to be attributing that to a decision by the government of Ontario.

3:10 p.m.

The member well knows most hospitals in this province reduce the number of beds they have open during the summer, largely because of their desire to accommodate patient demands, since patients do not want elective surgery during the summer, but also because the medical staff, the nursing staff and other staff at the hospital want summer holidays like everyone else.

To attribute that to a government policy which has forced them to close down in the summer period indicates, with respect, that either the doctor who gave the member that information or perhaps she herself does not understand how all the hospitals in this province have worked out the situations to accommodate summer pressures, and lack of pressures in some instances.

Ms. Copps: Did it ever occur to the minister that he should be asking a few more questions of the district health council? While he was there having this fantastic discussion, this woman waited 26 hours to have her hip set.

I respectfully suggest that the jokes about General Galtieri and the Liberal election do not have anything to do with what happened to Jeannette Silver at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital. I want answers about Jeannette Silver.

The minister should be very aware, and if he is not I would like to know why he is not aware, that emergency patients in the city of Hamilton are being shifted from hospital to hospital oftentimes because intensive-care-unit beds are not available; ICU beds are full 25 per cent of the time.

It is a very serious question and it is one that should be addressed. When is he going to address it for the people of Hamilton and Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am delighted to hear that the ICU beds are not full 75 per cent of the time. May I also say that I am sure the member and her leader, who is very hep on physical constraint, would not want to see the system overbuilt so that anyone could wander in at any given time and find dozens of beds available at any given time. The situation in place in this province allows doctors --

Ms. Copps: A 73-year-old woman with a broken hip --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will wait until the member is finished. I know the pressures that a long holiday can bring.

The member would not want, nor would she advocate, a system where our hospitals were operating at 60 per cent capacity or 50 per cent capacity. She quite properly would be castigating this government for having spent too much money on the system and having overbuilt the system.

What we try to do in conjunction with the district health councils is provide the number of beds in hospitals that are necessary to accommodate our patients. In point of fact, in this jurisdiction and in every jurisdiction, as the member knows well, it is up to the physicians and the hospitals to allocate those beds.

May I say on behalf of the physicians and administrators in Hamilton, that area happens to be blessed with one of the best co-ordinated systems in the province. They do an excellent job of co-ordinating their facilities in that area. It is a great credit to the people in the Hamilton-Wentworth area -- the physicians, the hospitals and the district health council -- that they have succeeded in doing that.

That only emphasizes the fact that if a particular patient had a problem in getting into a facility, then the member has mixed ICU up with someone with a hip problem, I think she said, or whatever --

Ms. Copps: She had a broken hip.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member need not get excited; let her listen to me.

Ms. Copps: I'm sure she was very excited.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member is that perturbed about it, then I have to tell her that she should call up the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, because the patient's doctor had the obligation -- not the opportunity or the privilege, but the obligation -- to put her into a hospital; and the hospital had the obligation under the law, which I read out last week while the member was absent, to admit that patient if she was indeed an emergency or urgent case.

Ms. Copps: There were no beds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not a sufficient answer. With respect, I have to say to the Health critic, because her seatmate to her right asked me a similar question last Friday -- I have to repeat it, because she missed the answer, and I ask her to listen carefully.

The fact is that the hospital must admit anyone whom the doctor says is an emergency or urgent case and, in the case of urgent cases, within 24 hours.

If the member believes that a hospital broke the law or that a physician refused to indicate that someone was an emergency or urgent case, when that person was, then she should let us know and make that direct accusation about the hospital administrator or she should call the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario with regard to the physician, because that is where the responsibility lies.

There are beds for all emergency and urgent cases in this province.

HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister may be aware of the strike that has tied up the Hamilton Street Railway Co. system and the city. Local 107 of the Amalgamated Transit Union has made the restrained and reasonable demand of a two per cent increase this year and two per cent next year, plus an additional two per cent for the tradesmen and mechanics. However, the issue the dispute is hung up on is the effort by the region to remove or reduce the benefits these workers have under their cost of living agreement. That seems to be the sole issue at stake in the strike. Is the minister aware of this?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances. In fact, the last thing I did before coming to this House today was to meet with Mr. Pathé and with Mr. Illing, the director of conciliation and mediation, who has been attempting over the past weeks to get these people back to a resumption of mediation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister himself participating in an effort to see that the citizens of Hamilton are not inconvenienced simply because of an effort to seriously cut back the wages won by these workers, which are not by any means at the top of the scale?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If the honourable member is asking if I have been in touch with the respective parties myself, the answer is no.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that as a result of this strike hundreds of small businesses in the city are suffering and are laying people off because traffic throughout the city has become clogged, making it difficult for people to get around? In view of this loss of jobs, will the minister get directly involved personally in this dispute to endeavour to bring it to a conclusion before any more bitterness develops in that dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give that suggestion every consideration.

TRANSLATION SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier dealing with the case of Mr. Rhéal Beaudoin of Rockland, who appeared in front of the Social Assistance Review Board on April 15, 1982, and as of today has not received an answer from the board.

When I telephoned the board office today, I was told that the delay in answering my constituent was caused in part by the three-week period required for the translation of the answer. Does the Premier think such delays are reasonable, and what does he intend to do in this case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Government Services already has the answer to that question. If the honourable member would like the answer, I am sure the Minister of Government Services would be prepared to respond. Is that acceptable? I see the minister is ready.

Mr. Boudria: Yes. If that is a redirection, I would like to hear the answer.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of personal privilege at the end of question period. I intended to rise when the member for Prescott-Russell brought the matter up earlier today, but I wanted to check it out to make sure my facts were right.

We checked back to April 1 on all French translations that have been asked for and found that our turnaround time has been five working days or less. In checking further, I asked for any translation requests for decisions of the Social Assistance Review Board. The last one we received was on June 7, and it was written and back out by June 14. Bearing in mind that there were two weekend days in there, we did have the turnaround time within the five days.

I think the honourable member may have said we were not up to our full complement. I checked with the director and we have our full complement in that division of my ministry at present. In the Ministry of Government Services we are giving good service to the people. I know the member would like to correct the record and not have that lying over my staff's heads, when they have been doing their jobs.

Mr. Boudria: I wonder whether the minister will say what reason the secretary to the chairman of the Social Assistance Review Board would have for claiming it takes three weeks -- they are not my words; they are hers -- when the minister says it takes five days.

I am the first to admit that my own translations are coming in at a faster pace since I raised it in the House. But surely the minister or the Premier could tell us whether a three-week delay, as admitted to in this case by the secretary to the chairman of the board, is reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: If the member will give me the particular case, I will check it out. I did check and every one is logged in. We went back to April 1. We did look at the last Social Assistance Review Board request for a translated decision. The last one we had a request for was on June 7 and it returned on June 14. If the member gives it to me, I will be glad to check it out.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if the Speaker has noticed that since his admonition a week or so ago to members to restrict their questions and to make them more to the point, both opposition parties have been attempting to do that, and I think with some success.

However, it is increasingly frustrating when you allow the ministers, and the Premier (Mr. Davis) in particular, to wander all over the map in their responses and take their political cheap shots, without addressing themselves to the questions that have been put to them most specifically. There is a lack of fairness --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt is completely out of order. He knows as well as I do that according to the standing orders the ministers may or may not answer questions; they may answer questions in the manner which they choose. I am getting a little sick and tired of your impromptu remarks.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order that my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) raised a moment ago, specifically with reference to standing order 27(e), which states: "In putting an oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same The first point the member for Nickel Belt tried to put to you was that the opposition parties had been attempting to adhere to that portion of the standing orders.

The second point he was trying to make reads as follows: "...and in answering any such question, the member is not to debate the matter to which it refers." Mr. Speaker, that gives you the power to cut off the kind of extraneous material that pours forth from the Premier and Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and other principal offenders on the government side. We are simply asking you to enforce the standing orders of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall indeed, and I will be most happy to. I ask all honourable members on all sides of the House to take notice.

Mr. Laughren: Especially over there; that is where the problem is.

Mr. Speaker: Do not point the finger.

Mr. Laughren: I am; the problem is over there.

Mr. Speaker: That is your perception, and I am not going to debate it with you.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: With great respect, I also draw to your attention standing order 19(d)2(i), which is very clear about your responsibility: "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he directs his speech to matters other than the question under discussion.

I submit to you, with great respect, that on two occasions this afternoon -- the Premier in his reply to my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), and the Minister of Health in his reply to the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) -- members directed their speech to matters other than the question under discussion. They did so at some great length while you sat idly in the chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is very nice to have all this free advice and it is very nice to see the House is composed of so many experts. But I also point out to the honourable members that it is not a question of sitting idly by but a matter of using discretion, and I suggest again that all honourable members on all sides of the House, when placing questions and answering questions, take due notice of the standing orders.

Mr. Roy: But they are intimidating over there; don't let them do that.

Mr. Speaker: Who is intimidating whom?

Mr. Roy: We will back you up if they try to intimidate you. Those ministers try to throw their weight around.

PETITIONS

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 400 people from my riding who express great concern about the sales tax placed on meals in restaurants. All these people are customers of the Wharf Restaurant.

I submit this in the hope that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will see the light and correct the great travesty he has imposed on the people of this province by putting an additional sales tax on these meals.

TAX ON FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS

Mr. Epp: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker. Last week I submitted a petition to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), in the absence of the Treasurer, with respect to a tax on sanitary napkins, tampons and so forth. I have additional names here today that I would like to present with respect to that same petition.

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a cleaning company in Niagara Falls that is a member of the Dry Cleaners and Launderers Institute (Ontario) and their customers. I would like to direct this to the minister. It reads as follows:

"The undersigned customers support their protest on the June 14 expansion of the Ontario provincial sales tax. It imposes this tax on charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. We urge the Honourable Frank S. Miller, Treasurer of Ontario, to withdraw this application from his May 13, 1982, budget since it is unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition to the Treasurer regarding the extension of the retail sales tax to charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. The petition was submitted to me by Jim's 2 Hour Cleaners, 991 Kingston Road, Toronto. He operates a dry cleaning establishment in my riding at this address.

The petition contains 48 names of his customers in my riding who are asking for the withdrawal of the retail sales tax extension to charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers under the May 13, 1982, budget. They protest this extension of the retail sales tax on the grounds that it is "unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that on behalf of the standing committee on public accounts, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), chairman, and the members for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and Algoma (Mr. Wildman) be authorized to travel to British Columbia the week of July 4, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPIRE-BUILDING CONTROL ACT

Mr. T. P. Reid moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 165, An Act to control Empire-Building in Government.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for control of empire building in the public service or any of the agencies, boards or commissions of the Ontario government. It would apply to Ontario Hydro among other things, and to ombudsmen for instance, and deals with the expansion of their jurisdictions, the number of people on staff and their salaries.

It also provides there be 100 people set up with rather large salaries to enforce the Empire-Building Control Act. Actually, it does not, but it does provide for these matters to be reviewed by the standing committee on public accounts, which is already in existence and a fine committee it is.

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY ACT

Mr. T. P. Reid moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 166, An Act to establish the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productivity.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this follows one of the constructive recommendations I made in my budget reply which would set up a ministry of science, technology and productivity for Ontario. I need not tell the members about the importance of these matters, not only to the present but particularly to the future of Ontario.

In this act, I had intended, because I do not want to set up any empires, also to have the act contain a provision to do away with the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and the Provincial Secretariat for Justice because I feel they really are not necessary and we can replace them with this most-needed, most-required and most-constructive ministry.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling

the answers to questions 131, 153, 155, 156, 158, 178, 179, 198, 204, 205, 209, 213, 215, 222 and 224 on the Notice Paper.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

Now that the acting government House leader has tabled those answers, may I bring to his attention the fact that the final answers to a number of questions have not yet been given?

The interim answers may have been given -- I did not get all of the numbers so I would have to check -- but the final answers to questions 85, 95, 143, 144,145 and 157, all of which were to be given before this date, have not yet been tabled. I would ask that the acting government House leader take a look at the situation and see if he can get the answers at the earliest available opportunity. I assume that the interim answers have all been given.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise once again on this same issue. Rule 81(d) stipulates that a written answer will receive a written response, at least an interim response, two weeks after being tabled.

I have had similar problems in the past with other questions. I tabled question 216 on June 9; this should have been responded to at least with an interim answer by June 23. I have yet to receive either an interim answer or a final response.

It is not the first time this has happened; it has become almost a regular procedure. I enjoy getting up and speaking on points of order; however, I would much prefer not to have to do this but would have the Treasury benches comply with the orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will take note of both of those requests and respond at the appropriate time.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is the second occasion on which I have drawn to the attention of the government House leader -- and now the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is here -- that on April 22 I made an inquiry of the ministry. An interim answer was tabled on May 11 stating that the approximate date the information would be available would be May 21. I inquired about 10 days ago and I inquire again as to when the answer will be given to item 95 on today's Order Paper under the heading "Questions."

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will take note of that request as well.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I can make at this time is that I will raise these points and see if we can get a fast answer. I assure you that before the House rises these questions will be answered.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 5, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved third reading of Bill 21, An Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 140, An Act to amend Certain Acts in respect of Assessment Appeal Procedures.

RIDEAU CENTRE MORTGAGE FINANCING ACT

Hon. Mr. Sterling moved second reading of Bill 105, An Act respecting the Mortgage Financing of Rideau Centre in the City of Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the members of the House who might want to participate in this debate I might repeat what I said in my very short statement to the House.

The intent of Bill 105 is to provide for an innovative system of financing for the Rideau Centre in the city of Ottawa. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, it is a major real estate development located in the downtown Ottawa area, and included in the complex are such facilities as a 500-room full-service hotel, a 4,000-seat convention centre and many commercial facilities, which include a department store and a renovated office building.

In addition to the usual mortgage agreement arrangements, the legislation permits the mortgagor, or the borrower, to give the mortgagee, or the lender, an option to purchase an equity share in the project.

3:40 p.m.

Common law forbids such an option to be attached as part of the mortgage transaction. This clogging rule, as it is known, was developed to prevent an unscrupulous lender from changing a borrowing transaction into a transfer of property. The viability of the Rideau Centre depends on the successful completion of a loan for $88 million with such an option attached. The rationale behind the development of the common law rule, I believe, is not applicable in this case, as all parties to the agreement are well aware of the implications of the transaction.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Justice critic had a lot to say about this bill, but considering this whole project is right smack in my riding, I think I should make a few comments. Of course, those of us here are very supportive and in deep sympathy with the fact that we do not want what is called a clog or fetter on title.

Mr. Nixon: We do not want the common law to apply.

Mr. Roy: That is right. We do not want the common law to apply, although some of us here, and I will not make any gestures in any direction, are not really sure what we are talking about when we mention the common law.

Mr. Nixon: Somebody has to keep the lawyers in line around here.

Mr. Roy: The minister feels that every time we talk common law we are talking legal aid, but there is some distinction.

Mr. Nixon: There is no legal aid in this transaction, boy; $1,200 a day, that is the going rate.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I do not think there would be legal aid involved in this particular transaction. But we want assurance that there is nothing on file which in any way would impede the smooth and logical development of this project. We are in favour of it. We have reviewed the bill fully. My colleague the Justice critic and I spent the best part of last evening going through the common law to make sure there were no impediments.

Mr. Nixon: No clogs.

Mr. Roy: Yes. We also want to be assured that in no way will this bill be challenged because of the new charter which, as the minister knows, changes all the rules.

Mr. Nixon: It comes ahead of the Legislature.

Mr. Roy: We have reviewed this and it was our learned opinion, after my colleague and I reviewed it with some assistance, because we did get a brief legal opinion from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) --

Mr. Nixon: No charge.

Mr. Roy: No charge, but the acceptance of certain benefits. In fact, we would have been better off to pay cash on the barrel than accept, or give him further remuneration. In any event, we checked all this, and we consider this bill to be quite proper and we are supportive of it.

While I am on my feet talking on this bill about the Rideau Centre project, I would say to the minister that I am sure he has noticed that this very important project has been unfortunately delayed for most of the summer by a variety of strikes. As there is province-wide bargaining going on involving all the trades, there is not a week goes by when there is not one trade or another on strike, picketing or slowing down the work on a project. I am sure he has talked to his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and discussed that situation with him.

There are so few projects going on in this province that it will be unfortunate if this one is interminably delayed or interrupted on a regular basis because of all this bargaining going on at the provincial level. A whole series of trades are delaying the project. I thought I should bring this message to the minister's attention, because I have had occasion to talk to some of the contractors in the project who are getting extremely annoyed and frustrated by the fact that sometimes they do not have the necessary input in the bargaining process, as it takes place in Toronto. As a result of the process taking place in Toronto, the effects of the delay are being felt much more on projects like the Rideau Centre project in Ottawa.

I am sure the minister will talk to his colleague the Minister of Labour, and discuss with him how we can best resolve problems such as these.

Having said all of these things, we are supportive of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the bill. There are those in the assembly and elsewhere who would scoff at the common law. The fact is, a fundamental principle of mortgage law is involved in the issue before us today. It is proof of the adequacy and strength of the common law that over the years conveyancers have not been able to defeat the courts in any way that they have tried to impose a barrier on the right to redeem a mortgage, commonly known as the equity of redemption. For centuries conveyancers, with all their abstruse, arcane skills, have tried to defeat the common law on this point and the courts have been adamant.

We have been asked in the interest of smoothness and so that the development can go forward easily, and so on, to support this. I do not care what the size of the development is and I do not care who is behind the development, I will not allow this assembly to be used for the purpose of breaching one of the fundamental principles. There are three of them. This is the third one. It is elementary law. It is a very important principle. It is very difficult to get people to understand it, but if this assembly allows someone, in the guise of being helpful to some development, to affect that fundamental principle of real estate law in Ontario, then I think we will be doing a disservice to the public.

No reason has been put forward. If this kind of precedent is created, the government will have no answer to any development or to anyone who comes before the assembly to ask that be done. Only lawyers who are steeped in common law and have a basic fundamental respect for it will understand that wealth, land, the relationship between borrower and lender secured upon land, is not something that should be tampered with by this assembly on the grounds of there being some beneficial use to be made of real property in the province.

We are not going to divide on it. We will rest on the good wisdom of the House to reject the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we have legislation proposed in the name of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling). As the critic for the opposition for that ministry I am pleased to make a few comments on this bill.

The development of the Rideau Centre certainly will make a substantial base for employment, not only in construction but for continuing jobs in the Ottawa area. We in the opposition party welcome this project.

It is surely commonplace in 1982 to find it is an attribute in the construction of many buildings that a portion of the equitable value of that building be available to the mortgagee for lowering financing rates and so that the mortgagee can benefit from the incomes generated by the property and the eventual sale of that property, should there be a capital gain involved.

As I understand it, this project will be assumed by the federal crown for a nominal consideration of $1 some 50 years from now. I expect that the value developed through annual income will have completely satisfied the differential whereby lower financing costs are available during this lengthy term. As I mentioned, at that point the consideration will be $1. I do not know what the project will be worth, and I dare say none of us knows what $1 will be worth then. But those are the mechanics of sorting out this concern.

Many projects under particular pressures these days cannot be completed if the market financing rates are a burden to the overall cash flow of the development of the projects. This is clearly a way of avoiding this kind of inflationary roller-coaster, and I welcome the kind of financing developments that occur in projects such as this.

It is only through projects such as this that, in times of severe inflation, we will be able to develop many of the office and residential complexes that are so badly needed, not only for the provision of jobs in construction, but also for the provision of shelter in times of very low vacancy rates for apartments and the provision of a variety of new facilities.

3:50 p.m.

The convention centre, the retail and other commercial facilities and the park areas are going to be redeveloped in this older ward of the city of Ottawa, and I would hope all members of the House would welcome this development.

I do not have the burden the member for Riverdale has with respect to avoiding this cloud on the title that would otherwise occur through the operation of the common law. In this instance, and indeed I have no quarrel that in other instances, this House may in its wisdom be able to accommodate the new pattern of financing of a variety of these projects by removing that anachronism in the common law.

We certainly had no difficulty when we were recently dealing with mortmain and charitable uses which has been around since the early 1600s as an appendix to the English common law. We had no problem dealing with such things as divorce and a variety of other matters which the Family Law Reform Act now has in place. Something such as alimony and maintenance and a variety of these other aspects, such as dower, which the English courts disposed of as a result of legislation in 1925, we have only recently tidied up.

I see no difficulty in having this optional circumstance continue for the financing of the project. The whole development will be a substantial boost to the economy of the Ottawa area. I think I am prepared to weigh the balance and find in favour of the bill.

Certainly, it is fine to see the work and effort which the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has clearly put into this kind of project. It does rather give lie to the comment one hears on occasion that only a government member can get a certain project, or something, for his or her riding. It is quite clear that the absence of this kind of project would be laid at the doorstep of the local member; therefore, presumably, some of the credit for it should be laid there as well.

In any event, looking forward to the completion of this bill, and perhaps even to the next item of legislation on freedom of information which we may expect from the provincial secretary, we are prepared not only to support this bill but likely to support most of that next one.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in the event the bill does not go to committee of the whole, I thought perhaps I might just make my remarks in the form of a query which the minister might elucidate in his response. Certainly in this instance I am going to accept the suggestion, in fact the leadership of my colleagues learned in the law in this matter, but I would like to know what corporation is being unclogged and unfettered from the restraints of the common law by the passage of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: While the minister is contemplating that, does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Nixon: Who is lending the money?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate. I will pass along to the Minister of Labour the comments of the member for Ottawa East in terms of his concern about the continuing problem with labour disputes at the convention centre.

I appreciate the comments of the members in relation to the importance of this project not only for the city of Ottawa but for all of the eastern Ontario region. One of the noteworthy things about this project, in particular the convention centre part, is that support is going to be provided by not only the city of Ottawa but the surrounding municipalities, four of which I have the pleasure of representing here in the Legislature.

In my view it is unfortunate that the New Democratic Party seeks to oppose this bill on the basis of the fact we are doing away with the fundamental principle developed in common law. Those members who have had the fortune to study law know that one of the beauties of common law is that it has developed over a long period of time, and that is particularly true in the real property area. That notwithstanding, in the past this Legislature has not been inhibited in making changes to that common law. In 1978 I participated actively in the termination of the right of dower with the Family Law Reform Act.

We have also, as brought forward by the member for Kitchener, made other changes in the common law. Although this has been a fundamental principle in the past, this does not necessarily mean it should not be changed in the future. This principle has come under heavy attack by many of the courts that have considered this principle in decisions. Although philosophically many judges could not agree with it, they also acknowledged the principle was well embodied in law and could not be changed by them.

The principal reason for this kind of financing is to obtain a lower interest rate on the particular mortgage and therefore make the project viable and healthy for the 50 years during which this will remain in private hands.

As far as the corporation involved is concerned, the mortgagor is the Viking Rideau Corp. One of the lenders will be a national bank. Unfortunately I do not have the name of that bank; I have not been supplied with that information. Quite frankly, I do not know the relevance of the question because it is really between a lender, a mortgagor and a mortgagee.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps the minister would permit a question at this point in his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Certainly.

Mr. Nixon: If I may be so bold, it seems to me the relevance is we are setting aside a tenet of common law. For those of us who are amateurs in this matter, that is something normally only done with some reluctance and on occasions of some importance.

Obviously it benefits the community in that the building will go forward, but it must also benefit somebody who is lending them the money. What is irrelevant about asking who is going to be benefited?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I only suggest the member can go to the registry office and go after the document.

Mr. Nixon: I am going to you.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The document will be registered. I do not know whether they have absolutely settled on who the particular mortgagee might be. I am just not aware of that name. If the member would like me to, I will supply it after this debate is completed. I did not think it was relevant to the debate. It would be a matter of record. The problem associated with the lender is that it is a number of banks, pension funds and insurance companies which are all involved in a conglomerate.

Mr. Nixon: With a name.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I imagine it would have to have a corporate name or some kind of trustee to handle the particular situation.

I do not think I have any further comments on the bill and I appreciate the support given.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the members will recall that some weeks ago I introduced to this House Bill 143, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act. Currently, hoisting engineers are required to obtain a certificate of qualification under the Operating Engineers Act. However, the training of these operators will soon become the responsibility of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act. As a result, the present act will be amended so that all references to hoisting plants, steam hoisting plants and to operators of those plants will be deleted.

4 p.m.

These changes will bring into effect the recommendations contained in the report of the provincial labour-management safety committee of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. Furthermore, all references to the board of examiners constituted under the act have been deleted. The purpose of the board was to conduct examinations of stationary engineers and to issue certificates of qualification. Under the proposed amendment, this function would be performed by a chief officer appointed under the act. This implements one of the recommendations of the Wiseman committee report on agencies review.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker. I am speaking on second reading of this bill on behalf of our critic, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). I have reviewed with my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) the transfer of these obligations to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and we are agreed that this seems logical. We will accordingly support the bill.

The changes here are a result of the Wiseman report, as the minister has mentioned, which set out the more modern approach now being taken with respect to qualifications, as opposed to the mechanical operations of the Operating Engineers Act. As a result, we are quite prepared to support this bill and to deal with the variety of housekeeping amendments immediately.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have rather wide-ranging discussions on this bill with the people concerned, and I find there is little in the way of objection. I should put it more positively in that there is substantial support among the two groups affected by the principles in this bill, particularly in regard to the training of hoisting engineers. There is no question changes need to be made. The training is necessary and there probably should be certificates according to classification, because there is great variation in the types of equipment the hoisting engineers operate and, therefore, there probably should be some degree of qualification. That training and that degree could be provided better by this change in the act.

The section with regard to stationary engineers -- and the bill deals with only those two principles -- provides that the board of examiners be abolished and that the chief officer provide certification. There is no problem with the principle involved here. There may be some problems in the change. One concern I have had, in consultation with people in the field, is that there was not sufficient knowledge in the case of some of them in rather senior positions, not even knowledge about the proposal being made to abolish the board of examiners. From that point of view, I would like to have seen some delay in the enactment of this legislation until there was further discussion with those affected out in the field.

However, I have become aware of the urgency about this bill. Apparently a $1-million facility for training these people has already been acquired and will be idle until the bill is passed. Because the lack of information to all the people concerned may not be, at least entirely, the responsibility of the government, we will be supporting this bill.

I have perhaps a technical concern. At the present time the certification is done through legislation. It is my understanding that under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, or whatever legislation applies to that, it is proposed to be done by regulation and, therefore, any changes will never come before this House, whereas changes such as this now do have to come before this House.

I would like to have the minister assure us it is desirable there be that flexibility which would justify this being done by regulation rather than by legislation as at the present time.

I also understand there may be some division of responsibility where all the equipment will come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, but the actual assurance of those who are operating the equipment will come under the Ministry of Education. Therefore, we will have a division of responsibility. It seems to me to provide some confusion and overlapping that perhaps should be ironed out. If we can do some of this by regulation, it probably will be ironed out.

Briefly, those are the concerns I have with this legislation, but on balance we are supporting it and are going to be supporting it without amendment. I would like to hear from the minister with regard to these points I have raised.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have just had a brief exposure to the bill and I want to make a few comments on it. I think it is a rather important piece of legislation and I would suggest, in my opening comments, that the bill should be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature so we can have input from the special interest groups that are concerned about the Operating Engineers Act, the stationary engineers act, the hoisting engineers act and anything else that may follow them.

A few years ago, we had some discussion in the House on a similar bill and the stationary engineers were not too pleased with the impending legislation. I notice one of the changes is that it is now moved from the ministry's responsibility to the community colleges under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

One could not object to that, providing we have a proper cataloguing of all persons who are going to enter this field of the stationary engineer. I draw to the attention of the minister that although we are moving in this area, previously other trades were taken from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and I find now, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula, there are not enough personnel representing the ministry responsible for following up on those persons who have applied for an apprenticeship program.

There is often a certain time element they have to serve on the job, and six months, eight months or a year later they have to attend one of the community colleges. In a number of cases in the peninsula, I find persons who should be attending school or colleges at that time are not there. In other words, it could add an extra six months or a year before they get their certification. I would not like to see a similar program here.

I know persons who want to become stationary engineers are employed in industry, work on the job for that training and then write their exams. I think it has been mentioned here by a qualifying person from the ministry that as long as a person passes his written exam and spends a certain number of hours in the shop or on the job, he is entitled to his licence.

4:10 p.m.

Here we are talking about two different branches. One relates to heavy equipment operators such as hoist or crane operators. I do not think there are very many steam hoisting engineers or coal boilers in the province any more; there are diesel electric and diesel now. So I suggest that should almost be a separate identity from a person who is going to become a stationary engineer, whether first, second, third or fourth class. They are two distinct fields that should be kept separate. One is perhaps more important, and that is the stationary engineer.

One other thing I would like to question the minister about is the fact that while I think he now has a good program of inspection of hoisting engineers and equipment, the bill says nothing about the inspection end of it. I know of the good inspection services that are provided through his ministry now for equipment, particularly cables. I think cables play an important role in hoisting, because if there are faulty cables we can have serious accidents that are costly not only to human beings but also to equipment.

I see nothing there about safety inspection. Who is going to follow that up? I hope it will not be somebody from Colleges and Universities, because I think there should be a separate identity for that area of safety. I feel it is a major change in the legislation in this area, and I would like to see it referred to a standing committee so we can have input from persons working in the field.

The penalty seems to be higher than for any other infraction in many government bills: from $1,000 to $10,000. That is a pretty steep penalty for an infraction. If we have the proper inspections going on, we would not have very many infractions or the penalties that should follow.

I support the bill in principle, but I just draw this to the minister's attention. I feel in a sense that he wants to fulfil two different positions under the one bill, and perhaps they should have been separated long ago when the steam era passed. We have now come into diesel electric, and with stationary engineers we still have some plants, perhaps burning coal, but they are oil fired now. A few years down the road we may even have a nuclear plant of that nature producing steam on a small basis for industry. I know it has been considered; a representation before the Hydro committee suggested that they could perhaps develop nuclear power to produce steam for plants that require an enormous amount of steam in their line of production.

This is an important piece of legislation and I would like to see it referred to a standing committee of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) for their comments. I would like to assure the member for Erie that as a matter of principle this is not a bill that it will trouble me to take to a standing committee. I really mean that. But it has been a subject that has been around for discussion for several years now before all groups.

Concerning the proposed change with respect to the operating engineers, let us recall that what this bill does is just what the member said he thought should be done: it takes the operating engineers out of the bill, leaving the stationary engineers behind, and it changes virtually nothing with respect to the stationary engineers. However, as the member for Welland-Thorold pointed out, it does remove the examination by a board and substitutes an examination by a chief officer. In other words, instead of four public servants conducting the exams there will be one public servant conducting them. That is the only fundamental change as far as the stationary engineers are concerned.

As far as the operating engineers are concerned, a joint management-labour committee recommended some time ago that this legislation moving them into Colleges and Universities be carried out. I recall meeting with them myself as recently as six months ago, when I was Minister of Labour, as did the member for Kitchener and the member for Welland-Thorold, when they indicated to me that they do have a facility for training apprentices ready to go. There is a great need to get this issue settled and to have the apprenticeship or training of operating engineers dealt with under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

If I say I have some resistance to sending it to standing committee it is simply because I think there is an element of importance and it is an issue that really has been discussed very thoroughly over the years.

The member for Welland-Thorold commented on the abolition of the board. I can only say, as I said to the member for Erie, that there are four public servants now examining. The proposal is that there be a chief officer and that the other three public servants will carry on with their other duties. This is in line with the proposals to try to streamline activities where it is possible within government. I honestly do not think it changes anything within the functioning of the act or the effectiveness of the act. I hope it is not an issue that would cause anyone to have reservations about it.

I know from the conversations the member for Welland-Thorold and I have had that he was concerned that people in the field had not been thoroughly notified about the change. I would like to assure him that not only have I had assurances from labour and management that communications have taken place, but some time in the late summer of 1981 the Ministry of Colleges and Universities also sent a notification and an information sheet on the subject to every registered hoisting engineer advising them of the proposal. It was really fairly well publicized. In addition to that, the involved labour unions and the Institute of Power Engineers were also informed. That was in 1981. I realize it has gone on --

Mr. Swart: Stationary engineers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Stationary engineers. So there has been fairly good communication. As members and I know, as time goes on one may not always recall what happened some time before.

The member is quite right that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will have to pass a regulation, but the minister has been involved with these discussions along with myself for some time now. I have her assurance that there will be no delay in passing those regulations.

Members can certainly have the same assurance I have given the operating engineers, that I will be involved in the content of that regulation. I am certain it is to their satisfaction and meets their needs, as well as the employers' needs for training of apprentices in this area.

The member for Erie commented on apprenticeship programs and some delays and problems there. I have to tell him there is no training program for operating engineers now. The only requirement under this act is 18 months on the job somewhere and then writing an exam. That is really what prompted the labour-management safety committee to draft the letter to the then minister requesting consideration be given to the establishment of an apprenticeship training program. A variety of things that take place today, including the fact that the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act is there and that funding for any training comes through there, makes this transfer virtually a necessity.

The member also commented on the issue of a fine. I think it was about 1968 when this bill was last revised. Members will agree that from 1968 to 1982 there has been a considerable change in the value of the dollar. It is changing daily. I know the member's dollar does not change but my dollars seem to change daily perhaps because I have another one going to university this year. Anyway, I would hope the member would not feel that the change in the fine level was out of keeping with the change in costs over the years.

Members will notice that the issue of nuclear power has been removed from the bill. It has now been settled and agreed upon that the issue of nuclear power is purely a federal issue coming under the Atomic Energy Control Board. All references to nuclear power have been taken out of this act and are not really relevant for our consideration today.

I thank members for their comments. I do unfortunately have one minor amendment because deletion of the word "board" was overlooked in two subsections. I will have to introduce it for that reason only.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

4:20 p.m.

CERTIFICATION OF TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, moved second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Certification of Titles Act.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I would like to refresh the memories of the members present.

The Certification of Titles Act, as it now stands, gives land owners the right to apply to have title to their land certified and guaranteed by government. That act was passed in 1958. This amendment would add another part to the act.

Basically, it would permit the director of titles to certify the subdivider's title to land included in plans of subdivision which are already registered in the registry system. It would not require an application by the subdivider but could be carried out by a small staff supervised by the province of Ontario land registration and identification system. The title would be searched, and if it is sound it would be certified as of the date of the registration of the plan.

It would, therefore, eliminate the most difficult part of the usual 40-year title search period for lots on subdivision plans. Far fewer documents would have to be examined. This would save the searchers and the system staff a great deal of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that another major aspect of our common law is being dealt with this afternoon.

I suppose initially the 40-year search of title was effectively one way of dealing with the length of time a generation took to pass through the ownership of land in medieval England. Now, as we see subdivisions developing, it is found that time after time it is necessary to go behind the plan. In the older, established areas that may not be of particular concern, because records may be fairly well up to date and plans may well have been on for 50 or 80 or even 100 years.

However, in some of the newer areas which are now being developed, to search behind the plan can be a great expense. It must be a burden to persons who have to be dealing with that work to have to pull out the same documents each time, as well as an expense to the person who is buying a house in the subdivision, and often a matter of some delay.

Under the Certification of Titles Act there has been the opportunity for a particular parcel to have any of the clouds on title -- old easements or descriptions like "down to the big oak tree" or whatever -- expunged once and for all.

In effect, the land is taken out of one system and put into another. Through this system, which is called the Torrens system, there has been the development of a certificate which has guaranteed the ownership with probably not more than one page of entries, since the property was appropriately certified as to removing all previous possible claims.

In this situation, it is interesting to see that we are going to go into a pattern of certifying all the other plans that exist across the province. I presume there are thousands of those, and I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant as to what time frame we are dealing with, and how long he expects it to be before most plans in the communities are brought up to date.

We had in estimates, I believe it was a year or so ago, a lengthy explanation of the Polaris system. I certainly found it most interesting because it pinpoints, probably on a point finer than a pin, the various boundaries of titles and the exact bearings and details of descriptions in a way that could never be done by the surveyors as they moved across the province, or even by some of the more modern optical equipment available for dealing with details of bearings and distance. I would be interested to find out how long we are expected to have to develop this program, what percentage of plans will be dealt with and what time frame we will find ourselves in.

Section 4 does quite clearly set out that we will, as a result of this program, eliminate the need for title searchers to search behind plans when they are dealing with particular properties. That, of course, is quite a guarantee and, presumably, since there may well be certain errors occurring, I would also like to hear from the parliamentary assistant what the experience has been recently with claims against the funds that are on hand for certification of title and what the expectation may be concerning the expenses that may accrue.

As I recall, when I was critic for this ministry two years ago, the certification of titles fund had built up quite a healthy amount of money. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, a portion of that was transferred to the general revenue, because there was not a need for the maintenance of that size of fund with a particular earmark on it, shall I say. Certainly, while it is appropriate to keep some balanced amount of money there, naturally enough, if the funds develop through the payment of fees over a period of time and there are no claims, which is very much to be hoped, then additional funds may build up to quite some large extent.

One can always lower the fee for people dealing with plans in the future, but I find that in government patterns it is more likely that those fees will continue to be easily and comfortably borne by the willing horse, rather than having the fees cut so the revenues are accordingly available for other purposes. I would be interested in knowing what claims experience there has been recently and what the expectations may be.

I think that effectively completes my comments on this bill. The compensation pattern will continue if there are valid claims dealt with, under the procedure that has effectively existed through the director of titles, I presume. As a result, any of these matters will be dealt with, if errors are made, through the operation of the system that has been in place for some years under the certification of titles procedure.

It is, of course, naturally welcome to have modernization in the land registry system. I only regret that my House leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), is not here, because I am sure he would be more than happy to speak to the principle whereby legal fees for any particular project may be made somewhat less. He seems to have a penchant in areas such as that, and I am sure he would welcome that expectation, even though we are at this point uncertain what the reality may be.

However, the basic system is being modernized. We have an opportunity of dealing with many of the old patterns of survey whereby one boundary may have come from one reference point and another boundary from another. There is a certain gap occasionally, whether a rubber tape was used by the surveyor or whatever. That does occur from time to time.

I hope this program does develop well, and I am looking forward to the comments of the parliamentary assistant, so that we need not take this bill to committee.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this is a desirable bill. The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has dealt with a bit of the background of the registry system and the Certification of Titles Act. I will not go into that except to say that we in this province moved, it must have been about 25 years ago, into making it optional, at least in some of the counties and jurisdictions, to have property put under the Land Titles Act. This is a guarantee of title, and it is a continuing guarantee of title, unlike the certification we have now and that is proposed here for the subdivisions.

I remember being involved in a rather lengthy battle in the county of Welland about the introduction of the Land Titles Act. There was some very substantial opposition to it from the legal fraternity for very obvious reasons. Although they admitted it was a good system, it meant there would be far less work for lawyers in assuring clear title. So they objected to it, and were often slanted a bit in their comments, because work would be lost to the legal profession.

The certification of titles here, which could apply to all subdivisions in the province, is certainly very desirable. It is a sensible way of dealing with clearing titles up to a certain time. I presume that, subject to the certification of titles at the time immediately prior to the subdivision being created, it would give the opportunity to all those people who now have deeds to individual lots to carry forward with minimum expense in having the land titles apply to their individual properties on the basis of the certification of this title.

I ask the parliamentary assistant whether it is the intention under the Land Titles Act to carry on with the same kind of fee even though the certification of the land and, therefore, the clear title will provide it at the time of subdivision. I know there is an attempt here to abolish any payment for the certification of titles. Is that also going to apply to land titles, or is the fee for land titles still 1/10 of one per cent? Is that still going to apply for anybody --

Mr. Breithaupt: That is land transfer tax.

Mr. Swart: But I think there is a tax too for land titles, if one brings one's property under land titles. There is a payment there. I may be wrong, but I think it is 1/10 of one per cent on the value of the land. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. One must pay to have one's property put under the Land Titles Act, as one should. I presume, because we are not dealing with the Land Titles Act, that whatever the payment is it would still continue; but the parliamentary assistant knows that, because what we are doing here under this legislation is giving a great many people free certification of title to the property.

I do not object to that, except I point out that there are many rural communities in this province -- we went through this in our own municipality while I was there -- where villages such as Port Robinson have been there for 150 years or so and there was no subdivision of land; it had sort of grown up, each with an individual title. Now when they come to sell their property, there is a real problem in providing a clear title. Where there have been proposals by the government that they should go under land titles by the registrar or the master of titles, that they should go under this to give clear title, they are going to be saddled with tremendous costs.

Here is an instance where this certification of titles is going to be provided free. I support the bill. I am not saying these people should not get it free, but here we are going to have what would appear to be a very real contrast in the way one group is being dealt with and another group is being dealt with, and I hope the parliamentary assistant may deal with that issue when he rises.

I wonder whether there is also the intention, now that we are taking this step, to proceed to having a full land titles system here in Ontario. In the western provinces, in Australia and, I believe, in New Zealand as well as in many areas that have been developed primarily within this century, they have the land titles. I would think it would be desirable. One reason I support this bill and our party supports it is that we have been moving towards the land titles system to a greater extent in this province.

I want to concur with the request by the member for Kitchener for the minister to give us some indication of the size of these funds and the demand on these funds, because it becomes one fund now. Since we are abolishing any payments into this fund, how long is the fund going to last? Should it not be on a sustained basis? If we are going to pay out of this fund, even though the amounts are not great, it would seem to me this fund should not be depleted; it should be self-sustaining and perhaps building up.

I realize we reach a point where we have more money than is necessary. Once we have this legislation, which is going to abolish payments into it -- or perhaps only payments under land titles and nothing under certification, which may not be entirely fair -- then it seems to me it will be much more difficult to reintroduce amendments that will call for the payment of some of these funds.

I want to point out that there can be some very real costs to a fund like this. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is not here, and he may not be old enough to remember it, but back 15 or 20 years ago there were, if I remember correctly, in excess of 500 home owners in a subdivision who were in jeopardy and had to go to fight to retain the ownership of their homes because there was some interest claimed by a relative of the farmer who had originally owned all this land in that area.

I am not suggesting she did not have a legitimate claim, but it was taken to court. Eventually her claim was not sustained, but if it had been there would have been tremendous costs incurred for somebody and this could be cost for the registrar of titles for this combined fund if this kind of claim were sustained in another operation.

I have indicated the views of myself and my party on this. It is a good bill. There are some aspects of it that need further explanation and perhaps even some changes if we are going to make this completely fair.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to have one word with the parliamentary assistant.

Following the suggestion made with respect to the St. Catharines experience, I should remind the parliamentary assistant that in 1807 the settlement of the German Company Tract in Kitchener came under those same kinds of claims. They were resolved with a barrel of silver dollars which were brought up from Pennsylvania to pay off those claims.

Not only are we past that particular stage, but also, presumably, that kind of thing under this system will not happen again.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I hope my memory serves me well when answering the questions that have been asked by the member for Kitchener and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

To answer the question about the period of time it will take to fully implement this, we are talking about roughly 1,700 plans per year, which will probably take six years for a total of 10,200 plans of subdivision. There is an accumulated saving to be expected there. I have figures that are estimated figures, and I am not so sure whether it would be correct to quote them, but there are some estimated savings.

The member for Welland-Thorold was correct with regard to the certification of titles assurance fund. It is being merged, but under that certification of titles fund there have been five payments since 1971 to the best of our information, for a total amount of $10,000. The number of claims under the land titles assurance fund since 1971 is 37. My understanding is that the land titles assurance fund stands at $980,289 at present. It is maintained at roughly $1 million by transfers of funds from the consolidated revenue fund.

To the best of my knowledge, the largest payout under the land titles assurance fund was one of $50,000. The rest have all been small. I think that answers most of the questions.

I might comment to the member for Welland-Thorold that the staff have informed me they are examining going to the land titles system throughout the province in the next stage of the Polaris project. In their opinion, certification is a useful and low-cost first step towards that move.

The honourable member also talked about costs. I believe the present cost to certify is $750.

I hope my memory has not failed me. I hope I have answered the questions that were asked.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit a further question before we go into committee of the whole. I should have asked this when I was on my feet earlier, but is it the plan to do all subdivisions back to the 40-year limit? If they go back further than that, obviously there is no point in certifying the title.

If there were a case like the one in St. Catharines, with the price of land at present, would it not be true that the $1-million fund might not be any too much to have and that perhaps there should be a fund buildup substantially in excess of that? Or is there the provision and the assurance that the fund would be supplemented from the general revenue of the province if there were a claim over and above that?

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member, the answer to the last question is that the fund is always maintained at $1 million. If it should fall below that, it is reimbursed from the consolidated revenue fund.

I am trying to get the answer to the question as to how far back they would be intending to go. I believe they are talking about 1955, but I stand to be corrected on that. I will look to the staff for an answer, if I may have a moment.

The answer is here. I would rather have the honourable member have the correct answer before we conclude debate. I was quite correct; it is 1955.

The Deputy Speaker: The other question was not answered. What happens if there is a claim above the $1 million?

Mr. Mitchell: I have answered that, Mr. Speaker. The fund is always maintained at $1 million; money is put in from the consolidated revenue fund.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elgie moves that sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the bill be renumbered as 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 respectively and that the following section be added thereto:

"12(1) Subsection 23(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'board' in the first line and in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance 'chief officer.'"

"(2) Subsection 23(2) of the said act is amended by striking out 'board' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof 'chief officer."

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any question relative to this amendment, but I would like to use the opportunity, and I believe it is in order, to ask the minister whether this anticipates that the chief officer would be able to delegate this to anyone else for certification.

It is my understanding that at present there is an assistant chief officer who signs the certifications. This may be on a resolution of the board of examiners, but when there is no board of examiners, would this authorize the chief officer or his appointee to sign, or would he have to sign every one? If so, would it not be wise to have this broadened so he would not necessarily be the person who would have to sign them all?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, section 3 of the present act calls for the appointment of a chief officer as well as the examiners, but there is no specific authority. The capacity for that chief officer to delegate is there and it would remain there. It would be a necessary function for him to be able to continue, because he might not always be there on occasions when it was necessary. I would hope that would not change the functioning of the act in any way.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Swart: I am not sure I made myself clear. I did not understand the minister. Is it his opinion that it would not be the chief officer and that other people could sign the certificates on his behalf or could authorize these certificates? I know in some of the other acts that were before this House there is special provision for the chief officer or whoever is named, his designate or his appointee. So it is very clear. I just wanted to make sure that was the case here. I did understand from the minister's answer that he was giving that full assurance.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: All certificates issued now do bear the name of the chief officer.

Mr. Swart: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is what I am advised by the --

Mr. Swart: Some bear the name of the assistant chief officer, who is not even named in the act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Any certificate bears the chief officer's name. Examinations are conducted in the branch and are reviewed by an examiner, who is the assistant or deputy chief officer, as the member referred to. It is my understanding that capacity for the deputy chief officer to function will continue. Does that answer the member's question?

Mr. Swart: Not exactly. Does this provide that anybody other than the chief officer can sign certificates and those certificates would be valid, the way it is at present? Perhaps I am just being difficult, but I do not understand.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Frankly, I have not seen the certificates, but the member of the branch who is here assures me that each certificate bears the chief officer's name, not that of any delegate, at this time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Someone might be able to have the authority to sign on behalf of the chief officer.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes. Someone still has the authority to sign on behalf of the chief officer. Yes, of course.

Mr. Chairman: Satisfied? It seems clear to me.

Mr. Swart: No, I am not satisfied. I am just wondering whether the minister would not be willing to have a friendly amendment. If he deems it is desirable that somebody should be able to sign on behalf of the chief officer, it seems to me there could be situations where the chief officer could be ill or for some other reasons it could be desirable for him to delegate this authority to someone else. There should be provision to do so.

I understand the minister to say that all of them now are signed, and they would be under this, by the chief officer. Is it his wish that the chief officer should be required to sign them all?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I mentioned, it bears the chief officer's name but, as the member for Kitchener said and as I am advised, there is the authority to delegate that power to someone within the ministry. That power exists now, and it is not a problem for us.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as renumbered and as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 20, inclusive, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 143, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Elgie, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate was adjourned by a member opposite who is not in the chamber. If there are no other members wishing to speak to this bill --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) had the floor. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly summarize some of the comments made the other night by members opposite on this bill.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was discussing the lifting of restrictions on hospital grants. I point out to him that this is permissive only and that this is the last grant on which there are restrictions. It has been our policy to give the municipalities autonomy in grants, and it follows in that policy that we would lift the restrictions on municipalities to make grants to hospitals.

Both the member for Waterloo North and the member for Ottawa Centre were discussing the election of chairmen. Although that discussion is technically out of order, because there is nothing about the election of chairmen in here, the member for Waterloo North did ask me to indicate the views of the ministry on this subject.

I think he is aware that we had quite an extensive debate on this subject several weeks ago when we did the District Municipality of Muskoka Amendment Act. I think I dealt with the issue adequately at that time and made the position of the government quite clear.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) raised the question of by-elections. He was correct that by-elections are not mandatory; they are optional for the municipality when a vacancy occurs on a council. I think the date is some time in March or so many days before the end of the term; after that, council must appoint and does not hold a by-election.

I believe those are the points that were raised on this bill. I thank the honourable members for their support of this bill and commend it to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary assistant a question?

The Acting Speaker: No. I am afraid it has been closed off. I gave all honourable members an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Epp: We will do it in committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 15, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any proposed amendments?

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, Mr. Chairman, it was not I who asked this bill to go to committee of the whole House; I believe it was the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) who wanted to make a comment. I was quite content with the bill as it is.

Mr. Chairman: Which section would you like to comment on?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on section 2.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring to your attention that my colleague was trying to get the floor before, and the parliamentary assistant said, "Well, you have already spoken on the bill."

I might mention that in a piece of legislation like this we are dealing with 10 municipalities and 10 regional bills. I think it is a poor way to bring in legislation when we have to deal with 10 different municipalities under one bill. I might have wanted to speak on the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act. When you look at it, the first part just says "Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton". I just draw to your attention that the bill should have been a separate piece of legislation from the beginning.

Mr. Chairman: Actually, that is a good point. What does the parliamentary assistant say to that?

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we have had bills of this nature from this ministry for many years. There is no question that the bill does have a number of sections, as many bills do; it certainly is not as thick as many bills.

I have never really had a request before from any member of this House to divide a regional bill into a number of separate acts; I think it is much easier and simpler for the House to deal with the same principles in a different section of the act than to have a number of separate acts. But if there is a real desire from the opposition to have them separated in the future, I think at some time -- not here -- I would be pleased to discuss this with my critics or to have the House leaders discuss it to see whether it is really necessary to do so.

Mr. Epp: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: No. We are just talking on the bill; it is not a point of order.

Mr. Epp: Well, speaking to the same bill by way of a point of order: The parliamentary assistant will recall that his colleagues in Ottawa kept the bells ringing for two weeks because they wanted a bill divided into seven parts, and, as my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has pointed out, this bill actually has 10 parts. So the government is trying to outdo some of its friends in Ottawa. Certainly the point that is raised by my colleague is valid.

5 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, I am not that familiar with the bill in Ottawa. The bill in Ottawa has a number of parts with many different principles. Even though this bill is divided into 10 parts, the principles are relatively the same.

There have been no requests or suggestions made by anyone in the opposition over the past number of years when these bills came in in this form. If there should be an objection in the future, certainly we would wish to accommodate the opposition to make the bills as understandable as possible. We have a desire to make it as easy as possible for opposition members to understand the bills and to support them.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"2.(1) Subsection 4(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'thirty-three members composed of a chairman and' in the first and second lines.

"(2) Subsection 4(2) of the said act is amended by striking out 'or any other person' in the fourth and fifth lines.

"(3) Subsection 4(3) of the said act is repealed.

"(4) Subsection 4(4) of the said act is amended by inserting after 'chairman' in the sixth line, 'from among the members of the regional council.'

"(5) Subsection 4(6) of the said act is repealed."

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Epp: I did not think I was out of order.

The Deputy Chairman: I will recognize the point of order first.

Mr. Epp: I had your permission to speak.

The Deputy Chairman: You did indeed. I do not know what the point of order is until I listen to it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the motion by the member for Waterloo North is to change the method of the election of the regional chairman of the region of Ottawa-Carleton. I would suggest that there is nothing in this bill which discusses that principle. This is beyond any of the principles in the bill. I would suggest to you, as we have in our previous bill, that this amendment is not in order.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you respond to the point of order? Then I will have to think about it.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, this obviously is in order because it deals with the same bill and it deals with Ottawa-Carleton. We are dealing with section 2 and this amendment deals with section 2, so it is really not out of order.

You will recall that on Friday last I asked the parliamentary assistant to give us one good reason why the chairmen should not be elected. His argument is that they should not be elected and he has insisted on that, so I asked him to give us one good reason they should not be elected.

You will recall that in his response earlier he could not give us one good reason. I would think that in itself speaks for these chairmen being elected. I am trying to help the government by bringing in these amendments. It is obviously a very important oversight on their part.

The Deputy Chairman: I really wanted to hear the response from the member for Waterloo North to the point of order and I have listened very carefully. This amendment is not in order as to the principle of the bill at hand. I am in sympathy with the points you are trying to make inasmuch as there should be an opportunity for you to make them. As I see Bill 15, I regret your amendment is not consistent with the intention of the bill.

Mr. Epp: I have to defer to your wisdom and your decision. I disagree with it wholeheartedly but I --

The Deputy Chairman: I do it with great reluctance. I recognize the research and work you have done on it.

Mr. Epp: With great reluctance?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, it is. I have to rule the amendment out of order.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"6. (1) Subsection 14(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'some person' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof 'a member of the regional council.'

"(2) Subsection 14(2) of the said act is amended by striking out 'who may be one of the members of the regional council or any other person' in the fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof 'from among the members of the regional council.'

"(3) Subsection 14(3) of the said act is amended by striking out 'person' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof 'a member of the regional council.'"

Mr. Epp further moves that subsections 6(1) and (2) of the bill as printed be renumbered as subsections 6(4) and (5).

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This deals with the same subject, which is not part of the principle of the bill, and I ask you to consider the same ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Waterloo North before I make my momentous decision.

Mr. Epp: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that I believe it is part of the bill. We are dealing with section 6, and I think you should permit it.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), what was your point?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, again my point is that the purpose of the amendment really is to change the method of selecting the chairman of the regional council. There is nothing in section 6 that in any way deals with the chairman of the regional council or his selection. The member for Waterloo North is adding some additional sections that are not part of the principle of the bill, and I do not think this can be done under our rules. I would therefore ask you to rule this amendment out of order.

The Deputy Chairman: I have trouble only for that reason, and I therefore have to rule the amendment out of order. The honourable member has points to make, and I appreciate the fact that he is trying to make them. Unfortunately, I am not able to allow them to stand as part of an amendment within this bill as it now stands.

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would have other amendments to the bill but, given the fact that these amendments have been ruled out of order, I will have to wait for another opportunity to make these changes.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

Sections 7 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 20:

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, section 20 relates to the regional municipality of Niagara. The explanatory note states: "The re-enactment of subsection 86(1) of the act removes the requirement of municipal board approval to the designation of a controlled-access road. The re-enactment of subsections 86(6) and (7) makes uniform with other regional acts the provisions respecting the appeal from an order of the municipal board approving or refusing to approve the closing of a road that intersects a controlled- access road."

Why has it been changed to an appeal to the Divisional Court? Normally with every procedure you have with any municipal functions, such as hearings and appeals to a body, there is always an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. What is the reason for changing to an appeal to the Divisional Court? To me it is really out of the way to suggest an appeal to the Divisional Court or a jurisdiction of that nature. Why not leave it under the present system, an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which perhaps understands municipal problems more than any other body?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, until now it was not a case of making an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; it was a case of requiring them to go to the Ontario Municipal Board for all of these designations to seek approval. We feel it is no longer necessary for it to designate these roads; they should not be required to get approval for each designation. Therefore, we want to delete the necessity of going to the Ontario Municipal Board each time.

However, in taking away the right of a hearing to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is a mandatory hearing for every case, there should be some protection in what we feel are the minority of cases where a municipality or some person might object. In that case, as with any municipal bylaw, an appeal to a municipal bylaw can be taken to court if a person feels his rights have been taken away from him.

In effect, we are saying it is not necessary to go to the municipal board for every approval, but if someone wants to he may take it to court, if he feels his rights have been taken away from him. I think this will cut down considerably the amount of paperwork and the necessity for going to the OMB each time.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: I may quite agree with the parliamentary assistant on that particular point, but there is a third party who may be involved in it; that is, a member of the public, the citizen or ratepayer in a community. There may be an objection from one area municipality to another, and it may well go to the Divisional Court. But what happens to the third party? It would become more of an adversary system by moving it from the jurisdiction of the OMB to a court.

The parliamentary assistant has forgotten the general public. All he is interested in is whether there are any objections from one area municipality against the intent of the regional municipality to implement a bylaw, where perhaps the adjoining property owner may not even be aware of what is taking place. At least if there is an application to the OMB it has to be advertised. The application appears in a local newspaper so people are given some information indicating there are some changes in local government policy relating to the public as a whole.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, the right of appeal is not just for an area municipality. Any person can appeal, so the right of appeal is there for everyone. We have not forgotten the individual, as is indicated in the bill under subsection 20(6), "Any person, including an area municipality, that has filed particulars of an objection ... So the right of appeal is for everyone.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 50:

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, first of all I will read the section and perhaps you, as Chairman, can give me some guidance as to what it means.

"50. Subsection 70(2) of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"(2) In preparing the estimates, the regional council shall make due allowance for a surplus of any previous year that will be available during the current year and shall provide for any operating deficit of any previous year."

That is the end of the section. I am confused as to what the second half of that sentence means as tied into the first half.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, one would have to read what has been repealed. Up until now the approval of the minister was required to do this sort of thing. The effect of the section is to take away the requirement of the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to set up reserves for deficits, and so on. The municipality of Sudbury can now do this on its own without reference to the minister.

Mr. Laughren: My only comment would be that it is a misleading section. It is not that I think the member would mislead the House deliberately, but when I saw the wording I thought that the member himself had drafted this section, as opposed to the normal drafters of legislation.

I would like to know if the parliamentary assistant could tell me what the odds are -- and I think he is a betting man -- on any municipality, and in particular this applies to the regional municipality of Sudbury, ever having a surplus again, given the way the Ontario government is cutting back grants to the municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: First of all, Mr. Chairman, a compendium was provided to opposition critics. I hope others have shared in it. It indicated the purport of the amendment and indicated what it is.

Second, I have faith in the regional municipality of Sudbury doing good budgeting. It just might turn up with a surplus one of these days. I hope it can budget much better than our friend in Ottawa last night whose deficit doubled in a period of seven months.

Section 50 agreed to.

Sections 51 to 89, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 90:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think this section is a standard one in other regional municipality amendments in this act. It enables the minister, under certain circumstances, to change the designation of an area municipality to village, town, etc. I simply wanted to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant a problem that continues in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk with the area municipality designated the city of Nanticoke.

That city of Nanticoke is largely a rural area, part of it in my constituency and part represented by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). It has a number of important centres including the former towns of Waterford, Port Dover and so on. These no longer exist in that form, although fortunately the road maps of the province still indicate their existence because in fact they do exist.

One of the problems I want to bring to the parliamentary assistant's attention is that his senior, his master, his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, is very anxious that a part of the city of Nanticoke designated as the new town of Townsend, not for municipal but for advertising purposes, grow at a reasonable rate.

All the money, now close to $60 million, that we as taxpayers in the province have invested in it will eventually bear fruit and the people can be convinced, with all the blandishments the government is showering upon them, to move into that area. I understand that, as of last fall, about 40 houses were built and occupied and there were a number of houses built and waiting to be occupied, but the population has changed hardly at all, if at all, since 1981.

Naturally we are aware that with economic problems many people are not considering moving. We are aware the housing market is quite static wherever one goes.

The government has gone to great lengths to persuade people to move into that area. It has inaugurated extremely expensive and professional advertising campaigns involving full-page, full-colour advertisements in dailies and weeklies. It has hired full-time public relations officers to make the place look vibrant and exciting. If the Chairman were to go down there, he would find it vibrant and exciting.

We have spent, as I said, $60 million in providing the land and the buildings, a sewage system, recreation facilities, roads, lighting, ponds, ski trails and everything one could possibly think of. The only strange feeling when one goes there is that there are no people, or very few of them. The real problem is that the inadequate planning associated with that, which at some time might lead the minister to redesignate the area as its own municipality, is a tremendous commitment of public dollars.

I know it is difficult to get members of the Legislature interested in an area that is distant from their own concerns. In the backs of their minds they know there is some sort of fiasco going on there and that over the years all of these millions of dollars have been committed. I invite the members to go there and not to wait for the parliamentary assistant to rent a bus -- which he has done in the past -- because it is difficult to get people interested in it.

Right down the centre of the town is the dividing line between two school boards. It is difficult for those people who bought houses there thinking their children would be able to go to school with their friends, let us say under the jurisdiction of the former county of Haldimand, to find they have to send their children to a distant school by bus. In an effort to appease the feelings of the local citizens, the government, through the Ontario Land Corp., is actually paying the special fees necessary for young students to go from one jurisdiction to the other.

We are talking about an increase in population there and the possibility of a change in the designation of the town of Townsend. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can report to the House if there is any change in government policy in this respect. I know one of the concerns is the jurisdiction of the board of education.

One of the alternatives would be to pick out the area from the region surrounding the new town of Townsend and put it all together, either with the city of Nanticoke or with one of the other lower-tier municipalities, so the whole community would come under one school board rather than under the divided jurisdiction of two school boards. I suppose this bill would give the minister at least part of the power he would need to effect the kind of solution that has been pending for so long.

5:20 p.m.

One of the additional problems is that it involves the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The housing minister never comes into the House when we are discussing these bills. I know he has a good deal of confidence in his parliamentary assistant, who is sitting at the far end of the row where we can hardly see him in the mists of political --

Mr. Wildman: Oblivion.

Mr. Nixon: Oblivion is exactly the word I was searching for. Actually, I have quite a bit of confidence in the man myself because he knows far more about this than the minister. The only thing is, unless we can get the minister interested in the problem, we are not even going to approach a solution. The minister goes off to his ivory tower, wherever his office is, and contemplates the development of this new municipality.

He has even persuaded the regional municipality to vote in favour of a new regional headquarters that would be built right out in the open fields of the new town of Townsend in the city of Nanticoke in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. He has provided the plans. He is lending them the money at subsidized interest rates.

He is providing the landscaping free of charge. He is buying back the old municipal buildings at something like $600,000 for some ancillary use which he has in mind, and at the same time he is assuring the regional council that provincial government offices will move into this new palais royal that the government of Ontario is really requiring the regional municipality to build.

Obviously, whatever amount of money it takes, the minister of municipal affairs -- who does not appear in the House even to listen to the debate on these bills -- has decided that is

going to be the growth centre in Haldimand-Norfolk.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can give us any information as to whether this section 90 is envisaged to be used by the minister to change the status of the town of Townsend, which is sort of a mythical community within the city of Nanticoke, so it would have its own status, or whether the city of Nanticoke, which would be much preferable, would expand its jurisdiction to include the whole community so that at least there would be some rationalization and normalization of the school jurisdiction problem.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this section is really simple and does not take in many of the things the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has indicated.

All this section does is allow an existing local municipality, if such municipality wishes to apply for a change of status -- from town to township, township to town or town to city -- to change its status within its existing local boundaries by an order in council and it is not necessary for that municipality to come to the Legislature for a bill.

We have had several bills in the Legislature recently. North York changed from borough to city and Kanata changed to city. We feel that if a municipality at its request wished to change the status of its municipality from one to another -- city, township, village, etc. -- it can be done by an order in council and it is not necessary to come before the Legislature. That is all this section deals with.

The problems raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk are proper concerns to him but, with respect, they are not dealt with in this section.

Mr. Nixon: I just want to say further that for all the numbers of municipalities that are going to ask for a change in designation, I really regret they are not going to come before the Legislature by way of amendment so there can be some discussion as to the development of the community. Rather, the whole thing is going to be hived off in some area where an order in council is prepared by some bureaucrat for the signature of a minister. He then gets the signature of another minister, they take it down to the Lieutenant Governor and the status of the community is changed that way.

What is the matter with bringing it to the Legislature? We are busy, but certainly not so busy that we do not want to have for ourselves the right to discuss changes in the status of the municipalities within our own constituencies or even elsewhere. I really think the purpose of section 90, which reappears in the other amendments for the various regional governments, is unnecessary. I personally regret that the parliamentary assistant is asking for this special additional authority for his colleagues in the executive council to be able to change the status without returning to the Legislature.

I am not going to oppose it, because it does not make that much difference and we can talk about these changing statuses when we choose under other circumstances. I just think it is unnecessary authority, and I regret we are moving in that direction.

Section 90 agreed to.

Sections 91 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 15 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Norton, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 92, An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make several changes in the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act. It will increase by two the number of councillors in the township of the Archipelago by adding an additional member to each of wards three and four. It will also empower in the future the Ontario Municipal Board to decide changes in the composition of the wards' structure in the municipality. The bill will also enable the clerk in his capacity as chief election officer to establish polling places within adjacent municipalities for the convenience of electors. These changes have been requested by the council of the township of the Archipelago and I would ask the support of the House for this bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously going to support this bill, because we support the principle of it, and that is to give greater representation to two of the wards which we are told are under-represented at this time.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when you were a relatively new member of this chamber, there was a considerable amount of discussion about the Archipelago. At that time we suggested there should be two municipalities, and the House at that time endorsed that particular concept. There were two municipalities and, later on, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) at that time, who was also Minister of Municipal Affairs, brought in an amendment which joined the two municipalities. As a result, we have one municipality now known as the Archipelago.

I thought the former municipalities were operating very well at that time. There was a fear down there that the government was trying to impose some form of regional government on this area. I think those suspicions have not completely died out and this fear is still there. When the government gets to that point when it wants to impose regional government on the area, we on this side of the House will do everything in our power to try to protect the people from that move. To date, it has not tried to do it, but who knows when it may try to bring in a bill to that effect?

The bill before us merely increases the representation of the two municipalities, and we support that. Although there are some other amendments, they are relatively minor and we have no difficulty with them.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the bill and perhaps ask a question or two of the parliamentary assistant. I recall that this House, particularly the municipal affairs critics, spent a great deal of time in debating the matter of the formation of the new municipality of the Archipelago. We should remind this House that we almost came to the point where no movement was being made.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, myself and especially Colin Isaacs, the former member for Wentworth, got together, and it was the proposal of Colin Isaacs which provided the solution to the deadlock that we had reached at that time: namely, that there would be two municipalities. However, those municipalities could request amalgamation at a later time and the minister would have the power to determine whether that amalgamation should take place.

It was that compromise proposed by Colin Isaacs that brought about this Archipelago municipality, and so we have a vested interest in its health from here on. The bill which we have before us, if it is passed, probably will add to the health of that municipality.

The main part of the proposal before us is to provide representation more based on population than it is at the present time, and we support that.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am correct in saying that the provision of subsection 3, empowering the Ontario Municipal Board, by application, to divide or dissolve the wards and to vary the composition of the council, is the same as that provided in all the other acts.

One thing that bothers me about this, and perhaps he will expand on it or explain it when he gets up, is that in the explanatory notes there is no suggestion made that the new wards are in any way different from the former wards. I believe I am right in saying there were wards there before. These descriptions cannot indicate, and one would need a map for this, what boundary changes are made. I hope he will inform us what changes have been made to those wards which existed before.

I would also like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether it is true any place else in Ontario that voting is permitted outside of the municipal boundaries. We would want to give some very close attention to this if we are setting a precedent here. I can understand that it makes things easier for people who may live in Parry Sound, for instance, and own property out in the Archipelago, to vote in the municipality of Parry Sound, but if it is setting a precedent then this House should be so informed.

Those are my comments and I await the answers of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), he is going to have a long wait until we bring in a bill for regional government because we have no intention of so doing. Nothing I have seen or heard in the ministry since I have been there for the past few years in any way indicates that will happen. I know the member for Waterloo North and I agree there should not be a regional government there. I am pleased he does agree with the government's policy at this time.

To the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the approval for a change of wards is normally done by a request from a municipality to the Ontario Municipal Board. These wards were set up by act and therefore the numbers have to be changed by an act of the Legislature. The member is correct that we are then putting them into the same status as other municipalities.

Mr. Swart: The boards won't change themselves. Is the description different to what was --

Mr. Rotenberg: I am going to ask. Unfortunately, the geography of the House is such that it requires that staff stay down there. I am just getting the message. Yes, there are some new boundaries, some changes in boundaries.

Mr. Swart: Are they substantial changes, and if so, what?

Mr. Rotenberg: I am sending another message. I am sorry. I have a map of the boundaries in my file. I do not believe the changes are substantial but I will be able to answer that question for you.

As far as voting outside the municipality is concerned, this happened in the last election. I believe it was done under a ministerial order in the last election because many of these areas are on islands and during the winter it is a little difficult to get to them. The polling places are still within the district of Parry Sound. It is not setting a precedent that someone voting at a cottage area in Muskoka would be able to have a polling place in Toronto or in other municipalities. The legislation is very definite that the voting has to be in an adjacent municipality, which allows them to be on the land adjacent to it but not anywhere distant from the municipality.

In a moment I hope I will have an answer for the member for Welland-Thorold about any substantial changes in the ward boundaries. It is my understanding there are not any, but I will confirm that for the member within a very short period.

I am informed the changes are just technical changes because the old act had the two towns of North Archipelago and South Archipelago, but because we are going into one town -- the Archipelago -- there are some technical changes being made. There are no real changes in the actual boundaries of the ward. I think that answers the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: With one exception: Is this the first time there will be voting permitted outside the boundaries of a local municipality for the --

The Deputy Speaker: You are out of order, but --

Mr. Rotenberg: It is the first municipality. As indicated, this was done during the last election in this municipality but it is the first municipality where it has been done. With those questions answered, I would ask for the approval of the House for second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, 1981, which was debated in this Legislature and in committee, provided a new system for altering municipal boundaries. So far, that process has been quite successful in resolving some boundary disputes which previously had required long legal hassles. The new process, so far, is working out well.

The purpose of this bill is to allow a municipality that requested the OMB to alter its boundaries under the former system -- that is, which made an application under the former system before the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, 1981, came into force -- to withdraw its application before the OMB.

This amendment is necessary because section 24 of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, the one we passed last year, states that the OMB shall hear and determine issues before it at the time the act was passed. This transition section is thought not only to instruct the Ontario Municipal Board to consider seriously what is before it but also to make it impossible for an applicant to withdraw his application.

5:40 p.m.

That was not the intention of the bill when we brought it to the Legislature last year. The intention was that any matter before the OMB would continue and the OMB must hear such application if it is continued before the board. This bill will make it clear that a municipality has the same ability to withdraw an application to the board that it had prior to the coming into force of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

I point out to the House that I think it is a principle in law that anything before the OMB, any person who does make an application to the OMB or to any court, has the right to withdraw an application before it is heard or even during the hearing of the application.

The purpose of this bill is to clarify a section that some lawyers feel would not allow a municipality to withdraw an application that was brought before the OMB before the new system came into being. If it wishes to, it may make a new application under the new system.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, can anybody tell me whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is still a member of this Legislature? I have not seen him during any of these bills. He has not presented any of the bills, with the exception of introducing them for first reading in the Legislature, since the bill to merge the two ministries was introduced. I am just wondering whether anybody can tell me if he is still around and functioning as the minister.

I notice, in some of the other ministries, at times the minister carries a bill and at other times the parliamentary assistant carries it. I find that quite acceptable. But in this case I wonder whether I could have that question answered before we proceed.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the parliamentary assistant will be willing to respond in the fullness of time.

Mr. Epp: He will respond in the fullness of time? Okay. Perhaps he can answer that for me, because I am really curious. We keep on hearing the ghost name of "Bennett," but there is no Mr. Bennett. If the parliamentary assistant is going to do all the work, perhaps he should be paid accordingly.

The parliamentary assistant refers to the new procedure with respect to boundary disputes. As he said earlier, this procedure was endorsed wholeheartedly and, I think, unanimously by this Legislature in 1981. The procedure is a good one, whereby there will be an honest attempt to try to resolve boundary disputes between two or more municipalities by appointing some form of arbitrator. Obviously we endorse that. I understand from his comments and others that it is working fairly well.

However, we have a different application here. We find under this bill that retroactive legislation is being introduced. For that reason, we cannot really support it unless it goes to committee. We would very much like this bill to go to committee.

Under the old legislation, municipalities could apply to go to the OMB and have those various boundary disputes resolved. That is what has happened in the case of Tiny township and Midland and so forth.

What we find is that all of a sudden one of the municipalities can withdraw its application, saying, "We do not like that procedure; we want to go under the new procedure," despite the fact that it has proceeded at some cost under the old one. We find that unacceptable.

Just because municipalities such as Tiny and Vespra townships are small, they should not be discriminated against. They should have a chance to appear before the committee. I have asked the parliamentary assistant to permit them to come before the committee and make their presentation, as they very much would like to do. They have some points they would like to make. I do not know all the points they want to make, although they have sent me a considerable amount of literature. I think they are best able to present those points themselves.

Last week in the standing committee on general government, when we dealt with Bill 28, we had three delegations that were able to present their side of the picture very forcefully. We would like to give these townships the opportunity to do likewise; so I appeal to the parliamentary assistant.

I know his colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), who is in the House, personally prefers that this matter go to committee. I hope he will speak to the matter and do whatever he can to persuade the parliamentary assistant to let this bill go to committee.

On this side of the House, we believe those townships should have an opportunity to appear. If they do not, what the government is saying is that it is introducing retroactive legislation. At best, retroactive legislation is not acceptable.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill --

Mr. Nixon: Who is holding the fort downstairs?

Mr. Breaugh: Do not worry. The fort is being held. It is in safe hands.

One of the difficulties when one looks at this bill is that it deals with an argument not mentioned in the bill. If one looks at the title of the bill, we are talking about amending the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, 1981. It is difficult to relate that to the basic argument here between Tiny township and surrounding municipalities. Going into the history of that, it does seem to have a whole different set of arguments other than what is stated in the bill.

When one talks to the individuals involved, one begins to see the point of view of Tiny township and to think that the minister quite niftily has been, in a series of correspondence outside the Legislature to the township of Tiny, a little less than straightforward, I guess one might say, as to how he is proceeding with this. He is kind of nasty in tone when he is writing to Tiny township and fairly straightforward in tone when it comes to presenting legislation to the House which fails to mention, oddly enough, any part of the argument.

One requires a little background to this before one begins to understand the purpose of the bill, which is essentially to get around a process that had already begun.

I have to say that this party supports Tiny township. Tiny township has done what was expected of it in days previous. It has really decided --

Mr. Laughren: With a name like that, I would support them no matter what they wanted.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has an affinity for the word "tiny."

One really has to say that here is a small rural municipality in Ontario that played by the rules, accepted this government's version of how boundary disputes should be handled, went to the expense of preparing its arguments and is still prepared to go that original route. In other words, the rules of the game were clearly laid out.

I must point out to most of the members who have some interest in this, but do not have a background in municipal politics, that it is not easy for a small, rural municipality to gather up the legal wherewithal and head off to the Ontario Municipal Board to argue a dispute like this.

The township has said in the past, and says now, it is prepared to go by that set of rules. It is prepared to gather up the arguments and place them before the OMB. It seems to me the rules were clear and it is most unfair for the minister now to proceed with this kind of legislation.

It is particularly galling for me to see that the minister is not present when he is doing that. If the minister wants to write the letters and participate in the debate outside of the Legislature, it seems only fair and reasonable that he ought to be inside the Legislature when the actual contents of the bill are being debated.

If he wants to have that argument, fine. Let him get in here and have it. What I object to is that he has the argument his way, when he wants it, by means of corresponding with Tiny township, but he is not here this afternoon to debate this bill.

5:50 p.m.

We support the efforts of one small rural municipality against the government of Ontario. It asks not for very much: only for fairness, only that the rules stay the same, only that the arguments be presented in the manner that they were first put to Tiny township, which was that this dispute has to go before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The township is prepared to do that. It seems to me that they have been eminently fair and eminently reasonable, and that the minister has been unfair and prejudicial and he now proposes retroactive law. He is removing a substantive right of the township of Tiny to a fair hearing. That seems to me to be bad news, unfair and an unrealistic way to propose a resolution to the problem.

I will say, as other members have said, that I would very much like, just as a measure of fairness, to provide that this bill go out to committee and that Tiny township be allowed to do what it cannot do when the bill is debated in the House, which is to appear before a legislative committee and, not at great length but with some detail, put forward its case. It seems to me that is not an unreasonable request. Yet I have seen correspondence from the minister which I believe says he does not want that to happen.

I do not know what Tiny township has in its arsenal of weapons. I do not know whether they are nuclear-equipped up there. However, they seem to have managed to do something which the government is really frightened of, and that I do not understand.

It seems to me to be a reasonable process that this bill should be referred to committee and that a day or two should be set aside so that Tiny township might come before a committee of the Legislature. I see the negotiations that are going on, and I wish the government good luck in convincing the parliamentary assistant. Maybe we should set aside the business of the day until the government in-house dispute is resolved.

Mr. Laughren: One is as stubborn as the other.

Mr. Breaugh: I will put my money on His Whipship.

Mr. Laughren: I wouldn't put much money on him.

Mr. Breaugh: This argument might go on for a while, Mr. Speaker.

At any rate, it seems to me not unreasonable at all for members of the House to say: "Let Tiny township have its day in court. Let it come down to Queen's Park. Let it face the Goliath head on, as it is prepared to do. Let it put forward the argument to see whether Tiny township has been dealt with fairly by the government of Ontario."

I must say that in my review of the correspondence back and forth between the minister and Tiny township and in reading the brief which Tiny township has prepared, it seems to me the answer to that is crystal clear: they have not been dealt with in a fair way. They deserve an opportunity to appear before a committee of the Legislature. I am prepared to say that it would not have to be a lengthy, expensive set of hearings. It could be handled in a wise and judicious manner. I am hoping that the eminent good sense of the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory) has prevailed and that he is --

The Deputy Speaker: All right. We have heard enough. Let us hear what he has to say.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, you can try that one on for size if you want, but I want to tell you, you are going nowhere with that act. I am prepared to yield the floor for a moment to allow the parliamentary assistant to tell me that they have relented.

The Deputy Speaker: No, this is it. You either sit down and he is on, or --

Mr. Breaugh: If you want to put it in those terms, you can sit there and I will stand here and we will go on for a little while. I was trying to be reasonable and provide him with an opportunity, just briefly --

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be prepared to do that, with the agreement of my critics, if we could get this out for one short hearing and back before we rise for the summer. I have no objection. However, it is vital to municipalities other than Tiny to have this legislation in place, because other municipalities have an imminent need for this for different reasons.

I think the chief government whip has indicated to me that we can have a hearing at some committee on Monday, with no advertising; just get Tiny down here to make a presentation, we will hear them and then get it back, whatever we do. I am prepared to make that proposal when it is my turn to speak.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, speaking to that point of order: I would be glad to go along with that. I think one day might very well be sufficient, but I am not sure we should make it Monday. It may have to be Wednesday to give the municipality time to get ready to come -- as long as we can make some accommodation for next week, certainly before we rise next week, so that the bill can come back for third reading and royal assent.

Mr. Ruston: One day.

Mr. Epp: One day; that is all.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such revolutionary action so quickly in this House. We brought the government to its knees on the matter. I want to clarify that, because we have had a little trouble with agreements carried on outside the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Let us not get into that.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: You are the only ones with trouble. We have had no trouble.

Mr. Breaugh: I have had no trouble. I have had more press on that agreement outside, and I was not even there. I want to get on the record that we now have all three parties agreeing that this bill will go to a committee next week for the purpose of hearings from Tiny township. With that clear understanding written in the Instant Hansard and duly witnessed by thousands in here, I am prepared to sit down.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I would like to bring it to your attention that the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) and the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor) have been putting forth material and saying this matter should go before a committee. I agree that the matter should go before committee. There might be other townships before the committee as well as Tiny township willing to speak to this matter. There are some other townships that are concerned. I would like that put on the record. It was not, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would like to think, only through his efforts. I would not like the record to say that he did it solely, as he so often does.

The Deputy Speaker: That was a great point of order.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I am also telling the member that he is doing Tiny township a disfavour.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, in my two minutes, I would like to say to the House that the two members from Simcoe indicated to me several weeks ago that, if we had time, they would like this to go to committee. I thank the members opposite for their agreement to do this quickly, so we can get it to committee to satisfy all the people.

I wish to point out to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), because he asked if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was still a member, that yes, he is still the member for Ottawa South and a member of this Legislature.

I also want to point out that there are a number of other municipalities that need this bill in a hurry, because they want to proceed under the new legislation. This is not retroactive legislation; it has always been in the legislation that a municipality could withdraw from an OMB hearing. It was not the government lawyers but outside lawyers who raised the possibility that the act, as passed last year, might not allow this. We want to make all the lawyers happy, and that is the only reason for the amendment.

I also wish to mention that the amendment allows Tiny township to get costs if the application is withdrawn from the OMB, which it could not now; so it is in its favour.

One other point is simply that the best Tiny township can do, if it has a hearing with the OMB, is to win and get the application dismissed, which it wants to do. If Midland withdraws its application, it will win without a hearing and it is further ahead. Even so, if it wants a hearing before the committee, we will consent to this. Therefore, I will ask to have second reading and then I will move that this go to the standing committee on administration of justice. If it has to be another committee, we can bring in another motion.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 29, 1982