MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT (concluded)
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (concluded)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with Bill 119. I would like to take a moment or two to discuss some of the points raised by the members opposite.
The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) asked about a clause in the bill allowing the regional municipality of Niagara to deal with election expenses. He wondered about other districts. I would point out to him that Niagara is the only region where members are elected to the regional government without being elected to the local government.
In areas like Muskoka, although they are elected to the regional government, they are also members of the local council and the election is run by the local clerk. Those elections are really local elections where they also get elected to the region, so it would be up to local council to set the rules because the local clerk is the one who runs it. Niagara is the only one that runs it the other way.
To the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I must say we simply have a disagreement in philosophy as to whether legislation such as this should be permissive or mandatory.
He raised a point, with which I agree, about municipal politicians being closest to the people. I agree with him, and I think it would be up to those local politicians who are closest to the people to decide whether in their individual municipality this legislation is required or desirable. If it is required and desirable and the local council does not put it in, there can be considerable pressure from the ratepayers.
Although I did not rise during the presentation of the member for Oshawa, he mentioned a couple of times that this bill was "fraudulent." I not only resent but also reject such remarks, because I certainly do not think the member for Oshawa was either correct or polite. He might be even in technical breach of the rules of the House in calling a bill fraudulent. I respect his point of view in disagreeing with the principle of the bill, but I ask him to respect ours. Everything in this bill is totally up front. He may choose to apologize for using the word, but I will not insist on it.
The legislation is permissive, because it is the philosophy of this government, of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and of the municipalities that this kind of bill and legislation should be permissive.
I point out to the member, if he reads the bill carefully, that it will be consistent for those municipalities that choose to adopt this legislation, because in section 25 of the bill, subsection 121(2) of the act says that "where a bylaw is passed under this section, the bylaw shall. . ." have all the clauses in it. All those municipalities that do pass it will be consistent and all will have the same clauses, rules and regulations. Those that have it will know what it is.
The member for Oshawa also mentioned the rebate system we have. We get so much per voter if we get such a percentage of the vote. Quebec does have something like that. Quebec pays up to 50 per cent of the election expenses of a candidate who obtains at least 20 per cent of the vote and gets elected. By the way, this is refundable by the municipalities, a rebate by municipalities.
There has been no request whatsoever from AMO or from municipalities to do this. I would say to the member for Oshawa, who talked about rebating, that if some of the municipalities wished out of their own funds to be able to give back so much a voter, as they do in Quebec, as we do from our funds and as the feds do from their funds, certainly we would be prepared to look at it. That is a rebating system which is different from taking money off their tax.
The other point about tax rebates which was raised by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is a little more difficult problem. Again, if one is contributing to a federal election campaign one gets a tax credit from the federal government. In fact, the federal government is paying part of the cost of the candidates. Contributors to provincial candidates generate credit only on provincial tax.
The question is, if there is going to be a tax credit for municipal election candidates and for the contributors, from what level of government should it come?
Mr. Boudria: From the province; where do you think we are?
Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Prescott- Russell says only the province should subsidize the municipal candidates.
Mr. Boudria: Of course.
Mr. Rotenberg: If we are going to do it, should it come from the federal government as well or should it come from municipal taxation? The principle is that each level of government subsidizes a rebate or a tax credit from its own level of government; we are not prepared at this stage to subsidize municipal candidates from the provincial coffers.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) mentioned that there are no overall spending limits. That is correct. It is patterned on the provincial level, where there are no overall spending limits. She did not mention, but she could have, that the federal government does have a form of spending limit which has holes big enough to drive a truck through. The simple way to get around the federal spending limit is that in federal law spending limits apply only from the time the writ is issued. Any candidate knowing what is coming can simply ask his printer to bill him for $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 worth of printing. He does not have to pay for it; he just gets the bill issued before the writ is issued and that does not count as election expenses. I believe that if we do not have it for our own elections, we should not have it for municipal elections.
I also point out that the present section 121, which was passed in this Legislature when there was a minority government, and which was supported and pushed for by the two opposition parties, was also permissive legislation for the municipalities. I am surprised that in the few short years since the opposition pushed for that legislation the New Democratic Party has changed its mind and, wanting it permissive then now wants it mandatory.
As I said about the member for Oshawa and the whole New Democratic Party, it is a difference in philosophy. I respect their opinion; I just cannot agree with it. I think legislation like this should be permissive for municipalities.
With those remarks, I think I have covered the main points raised by opposition members. I ask the support of the House for second reading of this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, has moved second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
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.
Ordered for third reading.
MUNICIPAL LICENSING ACT
Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 11, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Businesses by Municipalities.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, even though I have indicated this to the critics of the opposition parties, I will say at the outset that it is my intention after second reading to refer this bill to the standing committee on administration of justice for public hearings. There have been requests, not only from members opposite but also from various groups outside, to have hearings on this bill, and it is certainly our intention to have a full and complete debate on it in the committee. I hope it will be a set of hearings similar to those we had on the Planning Act, and I think the members opposite will agree that although we have not agreed on everything at those hearings on the Planning Act, certainly the hearings have been very open and have been a model of the proper process for a bill to be heard in committee. I hope we can have a similar set of hearings for Bill 11 when it gets to the justice committee later on this summer.
This bill has had a fairly long history before this Legislature. It had been introduced in various forms several times but was introduced in this form in October 1981, and reintroduced this spring as Bill 11.
This will give all local municipalities a general authority to pass bylaws to license and regulate any business carried on within the municipality as long as those bylaws do not conflict with provincial statutes or regulations, or do not try to license those businesses which the province licenses. This general licensing authority will replace a large number of specific provisions in the Municipal Act for licensing and regulating a variety of specified trades and businesses.
8:10 p.m.
I think honourable members know there are many clauses in the Municipal Act with different rules and regulations for different types of businesses. We always get requests from individual municipalities and private bills from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to allow them to license another business or a different business. It seems to us that the proper way to do it is to say to municipalities, "You have general authority to license those businesses you wish as long as they do not conflict with provincial or other statutes."
In addition to simplifying and consolidating municipal authority to license, this bill will transfer to municipal councils the authority now vested in police commissions to pass bylaws. It will also remove the status distinction among municipalities related to the types of bylaws they may pass. As members know, we are attempting to remove status distinctions throughout the Municipal Act; that is, the different powers of cities, towns, villages, townships and so on.
This bill will also establish for the public a right to a hearing when a licence has been refused or revoked.
Most important, this will allow municipalities to charge fees for cost recovery. That is, they can charge a fee which on accounting principles will mean they break even on the licensing of a particular business.
Following introduction of the municipal licensing bill last fall, printed copies were made available to municipalities and interested associations. A number of comments were received, most of which supported the general thrust of the legislation. No changes have been made in this bill since last fall.
As I said at the outset, when we do receive second reading of this bill, it will be my intention to move it out to committee for full hearings.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear at the outset that the parliamentary assistant indicated this bill will be going to committee, as has been indicated to me on various occasions. I would have second thoughts about supporting the bill, as we plan on doing, if this were not the case, because we have serious reservations about some parts of it.
However, in total I must indicate I am supportive of the principle of giving greater autonomy to municipalities. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this has come up from time to time and this bill, in essence, does that. It gives the municipalities an opportunity to control the licensing within their jurisdictions.
This bill has been in the making for many years. When I first came to the Legislature in 1977, I remember I had one of the small offices in the north wing on the main floor. That was before somebody on high decreed we should have offices with windows in them, and my particular office did not have any windows. I remember this bill being drawn to my attention at that time. So it is at least four or five years, and may have preceded even that date, when people were seriously thinking of bringing in a bill.
The parliamentary assistant did not refer to it, but I think this is the third bill that has been introduced in the Legislature. The others have died a normal death, somehow or other. This one will at least survive second reading today, I hope, and maybe go on to committee and greater and better things.
One of the stipulations is that municipalities will be able to charge $10 as a fee. If there is a prelicensing inspection, they will be able to charge $25, or they will be able to charge the equivalent of the administrative cost of exercising the licensing authority or of administering it.
I think this has been one of the big things that has held up the bill to date. I know the government, AMO and individual municipalities within that group could never come to any kind of consensus on the matter. I presume there is a great deal of consensus now, but certainly not total agreement, as to this stipulation. I am sure we will hear more when the municipalities, and, for that matter businesses, which are equally important, come before the committee and put forth their views.
I received a letter from the city of Burlington last week. The city has a particular concern with respect to the issuing of licences while business taxes are in arrears. Burlington councillors feel that if a firm's business taxes are in arrears it should not be issued a licence. Based on their experience, over I am not sure how many years, they indicate they have been able to collect their business taxes when people pay their licence fees. Because they want their licence, they pay their taxes.
I am sure they will put forth very eloquent and forceful arguments before the committee, where we will have an opportunity to judge the matter more thoroughly than we are able to do here. Certainly we will get both sides of the argument from municipalities and businesses as to the advisability of that particular policy.
The Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade has expressed some serious reservations. I notice the parliamentary assistant did not refer to the letter they sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). I am surprised he did not mention it; I would have thought a person who comes from Metropolitan Toronto and receives important letters, such as the one from the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, would have referred to it very readily.
After looking at it a second time, we can understand why he did not refer to it. The board of trade recommends that this bill not go forward for second or any future reading. The board is very much opposed to it. I would have thought the parliamentary assistant, if he had wanted to be objective about the whole matter, would have drawn it to our attention. Everybody here, just waiting to get into the debating game, would have brought forth forceful arguments in favour of the bill and forceful arguments opposed to the bill. Since the parliamentary assistant had a mental lapse and did not do that, I will draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of their concerns.
They are very much concerned that municipalities will have control over such things as morality, protection of residents as consumers and the control of noise, safety, health and other matters. I am surprised that it is the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade which expresses this concern. I could understand its coming from a board of trade or chamber of commerce from a very small municipality which does not have the staff or bureaucracy to look after these various matters, but that does not apply to Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto, Sudbury, Barrie or even Hamilton. It does not apply to any of those fine municipalities, and I am surprised that the board would express this concern.
Nevertheless, they are legitimately concerned and I look forward to hearing their presentation. I am sure they will elaborate extensively on the points they made to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
One of their concerns is that there will be widespread differences, and I do not doubt that this will be partly the case. I do not think for a moment that even the municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto all will have exactly the same licensing features and criteria, let alone Metropolitan Toronto compared with a small municipality of 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 people.
Those are legitimate concerns and the committee will have to pay some heed to them and, if possible, try to correct them. Sometimes these viewpoints cannot be rationalized or grouped in any sense.
There is also the concern that there are going to be additional costs with the licensing, because up to now, and until the new bill comes into effect, the provincial government has played a bigger hand in this. That is also a legitimate concern.
8:20 p.m.
An interesting part of this is that these bylaws will expire after five years. There is a natural sunset law that comes into effect here. We on this side of the House have been in support of some form of sunset legislation. I particularly endorse that aspect, because I think it means the municipalities will have to look closer at the legislation after a period of at least five years and in succeeding five-year periods, or periods similar to that number.
In summary, I am pleased that this bill will be going to committee. We support the bill with some serious reservations which we will develop in committee. I look forward to serving on that committee if I get the opportunity of doing so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Oshawa.
Mr. Laughren: Oshawa-Nickel Belt.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the Oshawa-Nickel Belt axis is at work here.
We have followed with great interest the kind of machinations that brought about this bill. It is true that it has been the subject of great argument for a lengthy period of time. It speaks to a rather substantial problem many municipalities have these days in attempting to deal with various kinds of businesses, issue licences and put together something that will deal with the realities that are present in everybody's municipality.
One of those realities is that the municipal level of the government often tries to work as a creature of the province and sometimes has to work under legislation that is somewhat dated. Most of us who have had municipal experience understand it is a little tough to figure out why it takes a motion of council to give somebody a taxi licence, but it often does. That simple act often gets one into a whole field that one really did not want to get into or is not particularly geared up for, that of regulating an industry. In large measure there is a lot of unfairness there, the licensing of taxicabs being one example.
Part of what a council does is it gets an unofficial quasi-police report. I do not understand why that happens when somebody wants to drive a cab. I suppose there are long-standing historical arguments that have been made about extraneous adventures that cab drivers occasionally get into. But it seems to be a measure of unfairness that someone could be denied a licence to operate a taxicab in any municipality in Ontario because of something that has no real status.
On a number of occasions when I was operating on a council, we got the word from the local police force, usually through a sergeant or somebody who came over to a committee of council and said, "This person has a questionable background." It is not a matter of public record that the person is a criminal, that he or she is under surveillance or has done something wrong in the past. There is a quaint level of gossip and rumour that functions, usually behind closed doors.
The net effect is that someone often can be denied a licence to operate a taxicab because of a report that has no status. It is not an official police report. It is a kind of reference from the local police commission or the local police officers as to who should or should not get a licence to operate a cab. There are lots of problems there.
There are other problems addressed in the principle of this bill that try to get at that age-old thing. Sometimes municipalities are granting licences and permits in areas where fees are fixed by provincial legislation. Those charges often go for a lengthy period of time without any adjustment. Municipalities are often caught in a situation where they have an obligation to provide a person with a licence. Part of that obligation often means some staff time is involved in preparing reports and monitoring a situation. On occasion, a $20 licence fee will cost a municipality a couple of hundred bucks to collect.
Supposedly, somewhere in the principle of this bill are mechanisms which address themselves to the ancient argument that a municipality, when it is operating as a licensing agent, ought to be able to recover its cost. I am not quite satisfied with the basis that is put inside the principle of this bill. When it goes to committee, I would like to hear a little more explanation and a little fuller debate as to precisely how that mechanism will work and be put in operation, and how it will be monitored and adjusted accordingly.
On the other side of the coin, it strikes me that I have seen situations where municipalities do not want something to happen and so simply make the fee for the licence prohibitive. It seems to me that is also wrong. It is an awkward mechanism and one that I think is wrong. Municipalities should not be doing that. There are little loopholes in various pieces of legislation which allow them to do that, but that does not make it right. It makes no sense to me, whether it is some kind of an adult entertainment parlour, a body-rub parlour, a strip joint or whatever the operation is. If it is illegal, shut it down. If it is not illegal, the municipality cannot de facto make it illegal by setting a prohibitive licence fee, because that is wrong.
Nor should a municipality, in my view, be allowed to set some arbitrary limit and get into the ludicrous situation of being able to decide, "We are not happy to have a lot of strip joints in our town, but we would be satisfied with 13." Why 13 as opposed to 14? I do not understand that at all.
If an operation is illegal, then I see grounds for a municipality or the province or the Criminal Code of Canada to say so. It is my understanding that we have a court system out there to make those decisions. If it is illegal, it cannot function. If it is legal, a municipality has the right to regulate and to license -- I am prepared to give them that -- but not to discriminate and not to prohibit. In my view, the principles enunciated in this bill come close to that mark but are not very explicit on the matter.
When the bill goes to committee, I want to get that into more definitive wording so it is made clear that the purpose of the exercise is to establish that a municipality can have the right to license something and to recover its expenses. Also, in doing so, just out of fairness, it is absolutely essential that it also should be made clear that it is wrong for a municipality to choose as a practice to make its licence fee the vehicle by which it stops some activity from happening. There should be a provision for monitoring that.
A number of people have approached me on this bill with great fear that it is sort of Orwellian in nature; I suppose, since we are only two years away from 1984, we should be getting used to this kind of thing. However, the principle of this bill contains some ramifications which, if the bill is left in its current state, will disturb me somewhat. I have stated that we support the basic idea behind the bill and that the principle of the thing is acceptable to us at second reading, but when it goes to committee, I think it must be made clear that there are problems with the bill in its present state.
A number of municipalities have written to me and people who are on council have argued that this licensing bill is something they must have in some form. So I want to make it clear that what we are talking about is the form itself, to establish some measure of fairness. The bill should be equitable and allow municipalities to license but not to prohibit, for it is my view that a municipal council is not elected to set some kind of moral standards for a community. I have no objection if the municipality in some way participates in that process, that is okay by me, but I do object when somebody who is elected to a municipal council takes on the role of judge and jury.
I recognize that there are provisions in the bill for hearings, but again they are not in a court of law nor a place where an individual can have the full rights that a judicial system offers to an individual in this country.
I want to deal with some of the aspects that might make some of the members nervous. It appears to me that a number of municipal councils have decided that strip joints are not "desirable." I suppose there is some basis on which all of us could agree that there are some types of adult entertainment which we would rather not have around, and I go back to my original point: if that is the case, let us write laws which say those things are illegal. Let the law be clear and let the courts play their proper roles and the legal decisions come down. I have no objection to any process that fulfils those criteria.
8:30 p.m.
What I do object to is a municipality deciding that what they want to do by means of a zoning bylaw or a licensing bylaw is really to establish clearly something that, if it were any activity other than a strip joint, would outrage the world. If we simply replaced the words "strip joint" with the word "church", and if we decided that municipalities could in effect regulate the kinds of churches that are going to operate in a community, there would be outrage. People would say: "That is wrong. We do not elect municipal governments to make that kind of decision. The courts can be used; there are provisions in the Criminal Code and charges can be laid. But we do not elect our municipal councils or our provincial Legislature to make those judgement calls."
Those are judgements that should properly be made by a court. There should be police investigations into all of the allegations anybody might care to make; but after that point it is not police officers who decide what is right and what is not right, in other words what is legal and what is not legal, a court establishes that. Very simply, the reason for this is that we have a long history of a judicial system that gives both sides all due occasion to make their arguments, and there is an appeal process; but a municipal council is not really set up, nor are the people there trained, to make those definitions.
I am afraid this bill, in large measure, puts a job on members of a municipal council that they probably would not want; but even if they want it they are ill equipped to handle it. I am leery of provisions in this bill that might be taken and extrapolated somewhat so that municipal councils can do that.
I am sure all of us are aware that in a number of municipalities around Ontario this is exactly what is happening: what purports to be a matter that can be defined under the Criminal Code of Canada -- that is, what is obscene and what is not -- in practice, on the ground, is decided by a local police force deciding whether it will or will not prosecute; and this very quickly gets us into the whole argument about how the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario operates with regard to taverns and tavern owners and a whole measure of unfairness.
While I am not making a valiant case here for strip joints, I am saying that proprietors of taverns, people who work in those situations, simply deserve fair play; they deserve their day in court. If something like that is illegal, prove it; if the practices that are going on in a tavern are illegal, prosecute them. That is fair to me.
In a lot of what I have read and a lot of the discussions I have had there is almost a form of class discrimination at work in which people say that a tavern which has dancers in it has got to be an evil place; they spread all kinds of innuendo, that there are illegal acts going on and that it is just a terrible place.
I want to put on the record that, in my view, there is no difference between a tavern, where a guy goes to have a few beers and watch a dancer, and the finest restaurant in this town. There is every bit as much likelihood of finding a criminal act in some of our more expensive restaurants, every bit as much likelihood that you will find undesirable characters there. The only difference I can see is that in one place it is going to cost you $10 to spend an evening and in the other you will probably not get past the hors-d'oeuvres for $10.
So I think there is a lot of unfairness at work and, unfortunately, if this bill is interpreted in certain ways, it will exacerbate that unfairness. I think that is wrong, and it is something I want to see corrected when the bill goes through its hearings in committee. The hard facts, as I see them, are that several municipalities are using very unorthodox techniques to accomplish something they probably should not even be working on in the first place.
It makes no sense to me that in many municipalities, my own included, I see a zoning bylaw going through that is insane; that is to say, a zoning bylaw that attempts to regulate certain types of entertainment by a zoning technique and comes up with a crazy patchwork-quilt zoning bylaw that is a perversion of the original principles behind zoning bylaws as I understand them. It seems to me that it makes the municipality look bad; that it has the municipality in a field where it does not belong, where it is not apt to do a fair and equitable job. The whole thing is just plain nuts.
I do not share some of the concerns, although I understand them, about things like video games. It is current and trendy in municipal politics to be against two things: strip joints and video games. I do not understand that.
I want to address myself to those two things. I do not patronize strip joints much these days, but, like every other young man, I spent a good deal of time in places which, to be polite, would be called not exactly class operations. I spent a reasonable amount of money there. Every university student I ever met did exactly that. I do not want true confessions in here, but I think most members have at some time at least walked by the outside of a place like that without any undue consequences. Fashionable or not at the municipal council level, the attitude I am talking about is hogwash and ought to be dealt with in that way.
The other thing I do not understand is the current tirade against the video games. I have a couple of kids who on occasion have played video games. I have seen them. I cannot confess to having played them. That kind of thing does not excite me much. In my day, I guess the equivalent of the video game was the pool parlour. I remember in my neighbourhood, my mother used to rail against Killoran's Pool Hall. So much so it made me go and take a look at that pool hall. I thought there would be real excitement there. There had to be dastardly deeds going on.
My only relationship with the guy named Paul Killoran who ran this particular pool hall is that, when Paul closed up for the evening, he would wander home. He had about four blocks to go and could only make it about two blocks at a time. He used to stop outside my house and give me a candy bar, and I would assist Paul through the remainder of the journey home. When I went to visit his establishment, I failed to understand the loving relationship that had been established between it and my brothers, who spent much more time there than I did. I think that is --
Mr. Epp: He said a lot of nice things about you.
Mr. Breaugh: He was a fine man.
I do not understand that mentality. If a pool hall or a pinball parlour or a video game is all that evil, then make them illegal. I do not believe they are. I understand the same arguments are being used now about video games and pinballs as were once made about pool halls, that these are trouble spots in the community and ought to be eradicated.
I do not know what happened to the great game of pea-pool, but somehow it has become respectable. They put carpets in the place and now women are shooting pool, a great stride forward for equal rights. Every time I see someone shooting pool these days, he is wearing a tuxedo and he is on national television. I think that is just great, but they are still playing pool which, when I was a kid, was supposed to be an evil occupation. It somehow warped the mind, made one go bad. I had two brothers who spent a lot of time in a pool hall and neither of them turned out too bad. I daresay there are a lot of members in this Legislature who occasionally dropped into a pool hall --
Interjection.
Mr. Breaugh: I would hope the New Democrats would be there with the working men and women of Ontario shooting a little pool. I was in a pool hall today just before I came. I report there were no riots, and nobody had lost a great amount of money. The balls were getting racked up. There was a lot of gossip flowing around, but it was not an evil place. That is the point I am trying to make in all of this. A lot of these places which somehow have become very trendy for municipal councils to attack are not evil. They are relatively harmless.
I could make not a bad argument that that is where a working man or woman goes for relaxation. They perhaps cannot afford to go to what might be seen to be -- let me take something that looks on the surface like a rather high class joint, that is the Imperial Room at the Royal York Hotel. That has a reputation for being a fine establishment. I do not see any zoning bylaws on the books of Toronto to attempt to get at the Royal York Hotel to put it out of business. I understand a topless revue is being shown there. More than that, if the review I read over the weekend in the Toronto Star was right, it is not sexist in nature, it is fair. There are male and female strippers at work in the Royal York. I want to make sure this little piece of legislation before us today is not used to shut down that operation or any other one. If there is a law being broken, let --
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Rotenberg: That rates a committee tour.
Mr. Breaugh: The member for Wilson Heights suggests that some committee make a formal tour. I am a proponent of --
Mr. McClellan: This is not the company law committee.
Mr. Breaugh: This is not company law. I think the members can find their way to the Royal York on their own and should not have any problem seeing whatever it is they want to see. I want to point out to those who might be worried the term "strip joint" is somehow sexist, that is no longer true. I cannot recall whether I have ever been an observer at any of these shows. I probably have. I will admit to it, even though I am not sure. There is now a big deal called male strippers. I cannot imagine why anyone would pay hard cash to go to see that when they could go to a locker room and get the same show for nothing, but apparently it is a business; there is equal treatment for all and there is no sexism involved.
One or two groups do make me a little uncomfortable. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have been mentioned as groups in our society that have some problems with this bill. At the risk of being caught on-side with either the board of trade or the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, I have to say I do support some of their apprehensions about the bill. It basically has to do with the broad-ranging principles in this type of legislation.
Other groups, like the Canadian Mobile Sign Association, have some feeling they are being shut out of business now by some municipalities saying the reason they cannot operate is that the municipalities do not have a clear right to license that group. It is strange that in some municipalities such as mine there are all kinds of mobile signs around; in other places it is somehow deemed to be illegal.
I share, with some fear, the concerns expressed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce on this matter. I think this one sentence from its letter nails it down, "While it is our belief that the intent of the legislation is to allow municipalities a greater degree of control over what might be deemed unsavoury businesses" -- I dare say its definition and mine of an unsavoury business might differ immensely -- "the effect of the legislation as presently drafted might be to give municipalities too great a power over individual businesses in their community."
Frankly, I think that is a reasonable concern because I do not see the balance I want in the principles that are laid out in the bill we are debating this evening. Somehow the right of appeal to a council over a council decision is seen to be the balancing act that is in there. I am afraid that causes me some problems.
If one is sitting on a municipal council and the majority of the council passes some resolution, bylaw, licensing application, whatever, is it then fair to come back to that same council or a committee of that council as the appeal process? I have some difficulty with that. It strikes me that if one moved over into the judicial side of things --
Mr. Boudria: Ontario Housing Corp. thinks it is a fine policy. It does it all the time.
Mr. Breaugh: I am not here to defend Ontario Housing, that is for sure.
If one moved over to the judicial side of things and said, "We have a court decision from this judge and this is what it is;" and one's appeal process was to go back before the same judge a second time and reargue the case, many of us would say that is not a practical way to deal with the matter.
That agency, that judge, has made his or her declaration on the matter. That judgement is out there. If one wants fairness in an appeal process, one wants to take it outside of that and go to a higher court, go to another court. It seems to me the concerns in this letter from the chamber of commerce, mirrored by the concerns of the board of trade, are ones that have to be addressed.
I am simply saying, again, let us not run the risk of leaving it in words so that we are stuck with someone out there having to define what is an unsavoury business. I do not think that is the job of a municipal council. I know there are those who might disagree with me. I am happy to say a municipality has a right to point out there are things going on which it does not like, just as I or any other group in our society has things one thinks ought to be illegal and to pressures this House or the federal House which then passes appropriate legislation which defines the legalities of the matter and then sets up a court system to deal with it; but I do not think that whole process is a job of the municipal council.
I do support the basic concept that they have a right to regulate. There is a need now to clarify and a need for a municipality to license, but I want to point out some of the unfairnesses that have been brought to my attention.
Municipalities have changed as they go through the process. The heart of this bill is that this is all going to go to the municipalities. I do see some logic behind this government saying they would like the municipal governments to take on this task, but I do not think it is quite that neat.
There are many examples of municipalities that less than a year ago said to certain individuals: "We are allowing you to go into business." Clearly they understood what kind of business was being offered here -- a tavern operation with some entertainment that would be either male or female dancers of some sort.
Municipalities knew that and granted permission for building permits. Individuals went to substantial expense. Businesses were established. People were hired to work there. Less than a year ago in some cases, municipalities with full knowledge and awareness of what was going on allowed these businesses to go into operation.
Now several of these municipalities, Etobicoke being one, have decided they do not like that business. In my view, simple fairness says if that is what a municipality wants to do, it should have said so in the beginning. If it was so upset with the type of tavern that was being operated, it should have made that clear initially. It should not have got to the point where they allowed somebody to go in, completely renovate the building and hire staff, and then get caught in kind of a backlash effect here.
That is wrong. If we are talking about morality, in my view that is immoral. To allow someone to invest in a business; to allow people to get hired as waiters and waitresses in these places -- many of them people who if they did not have that job might be on unemployment insurance or welfare -- and then to do that, is immoral. Many waiters and waitresses who work in these institutions have family obligations. They need that job, and in my view it is immoral for a municipality to come along a year after the business was started and say: "This job is no longer going to exist and we are going to licence this business out of business and all of you will be unemployed." I think that is immoral if we want to talk about morality.
A number of problems are brought up in this bill, and to try to give some perspective I think we would have to admit that in a number of places like the city of Toronto, local government has tried to do something, has tried to respond to a situation in their community that they are ill equipped to deal with. This bill is in some measure attempting to correct that.
It is my contention, although the principles are supportable, that the draft of this legislation and the actual bill itself wander from the intent, which is simple, clear and supportable, and take us well into fields that should not be included. I think what I am arguing for is pretty simple.
When this bill goes to committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from municipalities, which is reasonable. I do accept the validity of their argument. We will hear from business people who are having their livelihood threatened and, more important from my point of view, we will have an opportunity to hear from the people who are directly affected. In other words, they are the people who are probably going to lose their jobs because of this particular bill now before us. Many of them will have lost their jobs already because of an action of a municipal council. I think that is unfair and those things have to be corrected in committee.
The bill seems to be something we would have no problem with. If we stick to that simple principle and virtually ignore the rest of the text of the bill, that would be true. I want to get the concerns out front. I want people to understand what we are dealing with here and that there is unfairness almost on all sides. For a long time municipalities have lived with unfair pieces of legislation, almost whimsical in nature, some of which are quite ancient and were passed by this Legislature some time ago. That is unfair to the municipalities and needs to be cleaned up.
8:50 p.m.
They are attempting to do things through zoning bylaws that have nothing to do with zoning. That is an exercise in futility. I have read, for example, some of the reports on Etobicoke and other places from planners attempting to discern exactly how we can undo what we did last year. I have spent a great deal of time in my municipal career on planning committees. I know planners are devoted folks and skilled professionals in their field, but they are not skilled in designing morality laws. They are good at planning exercises and drafting zoning bylaws. When they are asked to do things that are beyond their expertise -- they are not lawyers, they are planners -- they get into hot water right away. I am saying that should be stopped.
Quite frankly, I hope that a number of the municipalities, such as Etobicoke, which have in the works right now zoning bylaws that are restrictive, punitive in nature and unfair because they are a radical change from what the rules were less than a year ago, will put those things on hold. They can come before the committee, make their arguments here and let us resolve them. Most important, all I want is a bill that allows municipalities to license fairly, to collect a reasonable fee and, in particular, to see if the proposals that are forthcoming will actually allow them to recover their costs -- I think that is only fair -- but not to become prohibitive. The fee itself should not be a mechanism used to prohibit any activity in our society. That one has to be nailed down.
The problem of whether municipalities are in fields in which they really should not be is another matter of some concern to me. Some clarification of just how broad-ranging this licensing bill is really going to be in practice is important. In addition to that, I want to see some fair and reasonable appeal process. In my view, it is unlikely to be fair and reasonable if one goes back to the same people who made the decision initially.
This bill is a little far-ranging. It does have an underlying current of unfairness. If it is used, as I suspect it could be used in its present form, as something that will allow a municipality to prohibit a business, I think it is wrong. If it is used as something that allows a municipality to regulate and license some business activity, I think that is fair; but the question of whether the activity is legal or illegal is not one a municipality is even designed to deal with. That is a matter for courts to decide. I know there is a measure of great unfairness from one municipality to another under the current situation. I am anxious that problem be resolved.
It often involves interpretation of the Criminal Code by police officers. None of us can find out even what their names are. It is one of those rare occurrences where, at the whim of a police officer, certain kinds of performances are allowed in one municipality and not allowed in another. I do not mean to be derogatory to the police officer, but he is not a court or a judge and should not be making that call. The call, of course, is whether or not the police will prosecute. We have all heard of instances when, perhaps with good reason, two or three police officers have sat in a tavern all day. I do not see that should be a priority. There are enough unemployed people around here who will be sitting in the taverns all day as it is.
I want to see that measure of unfairness taken out of this bill, or at least I want to see some protection so that what I see as an abrogation of the principle of the bill will not happen. That is important. I know there are many people who are anxious to appear before the committee and put their cases with the actual facts regarding what is going on in Ontario today. If there ever was a case of harassment, there are a number of tavern owners who have been to see me who have clearly made the case that they are being harassed. Their businesses are being threatened.
A little more pertinent, from my personal point of view, there are a fairly large number of people who are losing their jobs because of all this uncertainty. It is the uncertainty that is causing them to lose their jobs. It is not clear, by any stretch of the imagination, that anything illegal is happening. It is clear that some municipalities have decided they do not like those kinds of operations in their municipalities, but it seems to me that is unfair and it is not their decision to make.
The bill itself does considerable lumping of things called "adult entertainment parlours." I do not know what the hell that means. I know what a bar is, I know what a strip joint is, I know what a beverage room is, but I do not know what an adult entertainment parlour is. I do not think there is much here that clarifies it for me, and I think there are some distinctions to be made.
My personal opinion would be to make some clear distinctions and probably be a little tougher on certain kinds of operations than on others; but there is a measure of unfairness that flows through this bill which causes me some concern. This bill is open to considerable abuse, which bothers me immensely. I have an uneasy feeling, perhaps because of the people I am associated with here. It is not often that I get aligned with the chamber of commerce, the board of trade and the strip joint operators all on the same day; but I am, and so I view this bill with some trepidation.
There is a lot of work to be done on the bill in committee. I say this knowing the long history and background that has gone into consultation and preparation for this. It may be true that municipal organizations have said, by and large, "This is the type of legislation we need." Perhaps they have even gone so far as to say, "This bill is the best we are going to get." I simply want to make the argument, and we will make it in committee, that there are people in our society other than the municipal organizations who have a right to be heard on legislation of this type.
It is clearly the type of legislation that could be abused with some ease. If you put it in certain hands I am sure the board of trade and the chamber of commerce would get off my side if we went into definitions of what an unsavoury business is. There would be that problem. All I am saying is that this is not the type of legislation which is designed to handle that problem. It would be a misuse of the municipal government and a misuse of this act.
Many people have put the argument on the other side, and I do accept the basic tenets that are supposedly the principles of this bill. I am putting all of those caveats on it because I am unhappy with the current status of the bill. I am always unhappy when I think that people setting out to do good things create bad things for other individuals. That is wrong, and in a free society we should have mechanisms whereby we can resolve those differences.
I am aware there are going to be a lot of folks who may not appreciate the type of operation I am defending here, and I do not mean to defend any type of operation. All I mean to say is that no matter what the business is they deserve the same as any criminal would get, and that is a fair day in court; they do not deserve to be put out of business or to lose their jobs no matter what their activity is so long as that activity is legal.
The bill is far-reaching. It is one that I believe could be subject to great abuse and misuse, and I say this without meaning to cast aspersions on municipal councils; I believe they are trying to do a job. I just believe they are ill-equipped to handle this one in this way.
So we will follow the bill as it goes through committee. I have tried to lay out the areas where I have concerns and where I need to have those concerns laid to rest as the bill goes through the committee hearing stage and then to clause-by-clause debate. I am concerned that in a sense we are perpetuating unfairness and abuse in our own society and in our municipal government system right now by not doing anything about it.
I have several problems with the bill. The intent is just fine. It is all of the practical ramifications of what will happen if this bill becomes law in its present form that concern me, and I want to see safeguards put in place. When we have the hearings and get the bill back for clause-by-clause discussion I hope, at any rate, that I will be able to look at it, see it in a slightly different form and say, "Not only have you captured the intent, which I support, but you have put together a piece of legislation that is practical and fair for all concerned." That is my problem with this bill.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the two critics for their support of the bill in principle and for sending it out to committee.
In my initial remarks I did not deal with some of the letters or some of the points that have been made -- I have received them, as others have -- because of the feeling that it would go out to committee. In this circumstance I felt that was the proper place.
9 p.m.
I would like to thank the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) for outlining his concerns because I share some of those concerns, perhaps not in total but at least in part. Certainly they should be discussed in the committee when we get to them. I am sorry the member is concerned about the Royal York Hotel. I would point out to him that I have been to the Genosha Hotel. I find that a fine place, and I am sure he is quite happy with the Royal York as well.
The member for Oshawa has two basic concerns. One is a proper appeal procedure. In this bill we have taken much of the present legislation and put it into what we consider a better form. Certainly there is a better appeal procedure now than there has been over many years in licensing. That does not mean it is the right procedure, but at least we have taken a step in the right direction. I am quite prepared in committee, in hearings or in clause-by-clause discussion in committee, to discuss with the member for Oshawa and all members opposite whether we can improve the appeal procedure. I agree that when a member of the public is denied a licence he has to have that denial made through proper legal procedure and not on the whim of a politician.
The other point the member for Oshawa raises, and again I say it has some merit, is the whole problem of adult entertainment parlours. Let me point out again to all members of the Legislature that this legislation is almost the same as the present legislation in the Municipal Act. It has been modified slightly and has gone a little way in the direction the member for Oshawa wants.
Let me point out that when this legislation was passed, not many years ago, it was passed under a wave of public indignation. To the best of my recollection and the recollection of our staff, the legislation passed virtually unanimously in this House with support from all parties. In fact, to the best of my recollection, the only member of the Legislature who did object to the legislation, on some of the same grounds the member for Oshawa raises now, was the former member for Lakeshore, who is no longer with us. He had some objections on that basis, but in the spirit of the times it was felt this kind of legislation was necessary to control what was happening out on the streets at that time.
Perhaps five, six or seven years later there has been some modification in public opinion and public perceptions. Some of the reservations the member for Oshawa has may not be reservations of the majority of the public. I am quite prepared to listen to both sides of this issue, because I am as aware as he is that there are a number of people out there who are concerned about the legislation. I agree with him that licensing should not be a means of prohibition. Except for the taxi business, which is a whole separate bag, and the adult entertainment business, everything else is only by cost recovery or a modest fee. Adult entertainment and body-rub parlours could have a limitation, a fee, which may be a little difficult for some people and may be prohibitive. I would indicate to the member for Oshawa that I am quite prepared to discuss that when we go to committee.
The other point he mentioned was video games. We have had a number of private bills from municipalities before us. As members are aware, I have resisted the passing of private legislation regulating video games. I indicated to both the justice committee and the general government committee at different times that there should be standard legislation, if any, for video games. There are some requests for general legislation, not to prohibit video games, because that can be handled by zoning if the municipality wishes, but to regulate hours and particularly to prohibit school children from attending video game parlours during school hours. When we get to committee, I hope we have some discussion about that and I hope the government will have a recommendation. Again, that is for the committee stage.
As I indicated at the start, I would ask to have this bill pass second reading and then recommend it go out to committee.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, like other municipal bills we have had this session, this bill is an omnibus bill containing a number of clauses, many of which are similar to those we have already passed in the municipal and regional acts. This bill also proposes legislation which will permit the Metropolitan Toronto Police force to absorb the Toronto Harbour Police and enable the Metropolitan corporation to enter into agreements with the Toronto Harbour Commission and the city of Toronto for this purpose.
The Toronto Harbour Commission currently administers the Toronto Harbour Police under an agreement with the city of Toronto, which has been paying the cost of the harbour police. I will be proposing an amendment, which I circulated to the opposition critics about a week ago, which will also permit the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or the Metropolitan Toronto Police force to also absorb the Toronto port police by enabling the Metro corporation to enter into a similar agreement with the harbour commission for this purpose. The port of Toronto police are now employed and financed by the harbour commission. Legislation permitting the above agreements has been requested by the Metropolitan Toronto council.
In order to rationalize police-related activities across the entire Metropolitan Toronto waterfront, the request to have the legislation permit agreements to absorb the port police as well as the harbour police is supported by the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commission and the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Police Commissioners. The request has come from Metropolitan Toronto council.
This is permissive legislation which allows the agreement to be made for the harbour police or for the port police or for both. If no agreement is reached, nothing will happen. As I say, the legislation does not guarantee that such agreements will be reached, because it is permissive. But I am informed that the agreements are well under way and that there seems to be general agreement in principle among all the parties concerned that this will go forward if we pass the legislation. It is the government's view that the agreements which are permitted can be worked out in good faith by all the parties at the local level.
In addition to the police section of the bill, the bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. These include, as do similar provisions in other acts, as I have indicated, provisions for resignation and disqualification of Metro councillors, a method for changing the status of area municipalities, and I will be proposing an amendment to alter the vacancy provision of this Metro bill.
As the Metro act is now written, a member of Metro council who is absent for one month without permission would lose his Metro seat and his local council seat. I will be introducing a motion to put Metro on the same basis as all other municipalities by providing that a member of the Metro council may be absent for up to three months without permission, which is the same as all other municipal councils.
Many of the other provisions are routine housekeeping provisions and I would commend the bill to this Legislature.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very straightforward and underscores a number of things that have been dealt with in previous bills, such as dealing with vacancies, resignations and so forth. As the parliamentary assistant has indicated, one provision deals with the port police and the harbour police. As I understand it, the negotiations are proceeding fairly well with respect to it.
I would be interested in hearing what the parliamentary assistant has to say about the main objections of the police associations. It is typical for the parliamentary assistant to always dwell on the things that they agree with but he very seldom deals with any of the things where there is disagreement. I would hope he would elaborate on the disagreements that have held up the consummation of the various agreements.
We know that as far as the benefits are concerned some police officers are not very much in agreement with the provisions in the act. I also wonder whether we are going to end up with more than one police chief. I come from a region which has two police chiefs. That is not a very healthy setup. It is a very expensive way to deal with the police force. I wonder how the police chiefs of the various organizations are going to be integrated into the Metropolitan Toronto Police. For the benefit of the members here, the parliamentary assistant could elaborate at some length on these problems that I have raised.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I believe our critic will speak at some length on this, and he is just getting some notes together.
As the parliamentary assistant to the minister well knows, the particular area I have been concerned about relates to making sure the port police have their rights protected. I tabled a question some time ago, question 223, which the parliamentary assistant may have. I told him I would be asking about this. There is an extra copy of it here if one of the pages would take it over.
At that time I asked: "Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing table all correspondence between his ministry and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto concerning the rights and interests of the port police as a result of Bill 29? Would he provide assurances that he will not proceed with Bill 29 without assurances that the port police will not receive less in pension benefits under the amalgamation than they now are entitled to and that their present jobs will be safeguarded?"
That was tabled on June 15. The answer I received -- I think it came in today -- was: "In view of the generally accepted privilege in written communication and in view of the inherent element of confidence in exchanges between different levels of government, it is deemed inappropriate to table the correspondence related to this matter at this time."
I can understand that answer, but what I am asking is that the minister give us some assurances before we give assent to what is really a bill that does not deal directly in a very specific way with this particular item. Would he give some assurance that part of the negotiation process in allowing this bill to come forward was that the port police are going to be protected?
In my own riding -- and I know that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has a number of people in his riding who are similarly affected -- these are men who are in their fifties. They need assurances that their jobs are protected. They should not suffer disadvantages in terms of their pensions. They have devoted their lifetime careers to serving the public, and while the minister's amendment gives us some hope, I would still like some specific information from the parliamentary assistant on the results of these negotiations, where they are at and so forth.
Understanding the reason the minister cannot table the correspondence, perhaps he can give us an outline of the content of that correspondence, tell us where the negotiations are and give us some assurances that these people are not going to be sacrificed in the process of the worthwhile goals of the amalgamation.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that all of the opposition speakers are mainly concerned with the police issue and the amalgamation of the port police and the harbour police with the Metropolitan Toronto Police under this bill. I understand what the parliamentary assistant says, that it is permissive legislation and no such amalgamation may take place, but I think we should be prepared for the possibility and that is what the legislation does provide for.
We should receive some assurances that the people will be protected, and it should be perhaps a part of this legislation that the provincial government, in giving this permissive power, will insist that employees of the harbour commission and the port police are guaranteed their working conditions; that their seniority and their status are not altered substantially by the merger.
My colleague the member for Riverdale has been particularly concerned with this issue. He had a constituent who was a seaman in the Toronto Harbour Police and was quite concerned that his conditions would be detrimentally affected by the merger.
The member for Riverdale corresponded with the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) on the problem of this constituent. The member for Riverdale provided me with a copy of a letter that was addressed to Mr. Rotenberg and signed by the acting deputy chief of police for the Metropolitan Toronto Police force.
The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): The member is to be reminded, although she tries at times, to use the constituency from which a person comes.
Ms. Bryden: He is the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg). That is the riding.
If the member for Riverdale had been able to be here tonight I think he would have asked for some assurance from the minister that there would be something in the bill which would require the maintenance of the position of the present employees of the Toronto Harbour Police and port police.
I would like to read this letter into the record. It is only two paragraphs. It was written to the member for Wilson Heights, who I presume had also inquired of the Metropolitan Toronto Police in response to the member for Riverdale's letter. It says:
"Dear Mr. Rotenberg:
"With respect to your inquiry regarding the future status of personnel bearing the designation 'seaman' who are presently serving with the Toronto Harbour Police, I wish to inform you that the impending amalgamation of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force with the harbour police is extremely unlikely to have an adverse effect on the present status of these employees.
"Upon amalgamation, an agreement between the principals involved will come into effect and such agreement will, in fact, give a form of guarantee to all harbour police employees which will ensure their continued employment. In addition, their continued employment will be in a rank or position commensurate with their current status. This agreement, of course, would include the seaman earlier referred to.
"John Ward, Acting Deputy Chief of Police, Executive Services, Metropolitan Toronto Police."
In the light of that letter, which seems to be a fairly strong commitment from the Metropolitan Toronto Police to maintain the position of the seamen -- and I hope it would also apply to the other personnel of the Toronto Harbour Police -- I would hope that the parliamentary assistant could see his way clear to bring in an amendment which would say that this permissive power is given only on condition that the rights and position of the present employees of the Toronto Harbour Police are maintained. I hope he will respond to that proposal.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that once again we are in a bit of a jackpot here. This is, as the parliamentary assistant has said, permissive legislation. On the surface, it would appear to be relatively simple in nature; that is, if Metropolitan Toronto wants to, it can do something on the surface which makes some sense, and that is to have one unified police service, whether that is at the harbour with the form of the harbour police or everywhere else in the form of the metropolitan police, and that would bring in to one organization the provision of police services to this community.
9:20 p.m.
To speak to that principle is not a problem. I would find that an eminently supportable principle. It seems to me a rational provision of police services. Having said that, my colleagues have pointed out the problems we have. In my discussions with the parliamentary assistant I have tried to point out that I have no objection to the basic principle of the bill. I have some problems with two or three parts of it. Let me go over them fairly simply.
First, I am not sure I am happy in the long run with the idea that this says, "It might happen, and we are going to make it permissive legislation." It seems to me the onus is on Metropolitan Toronto. If they want to do that, if that means of providing police service makes sense to them, let them say so and then let us deal with the legislation. I am a little unhappy with the concept. I am not opposed to permissive legislation as a general principle, but I am in this case where it is quite specific about what they want to do.
It seems to me it is logical to have Metropolitan Toronto say, "Yes, we want to do this," and then the permissive legislation is granted. I am having more and more problems as each day goes by, as more people call me and say, "I am not sure how this legislation affects me." I say to them: "I understand your concerns and think they are valid. I think it is only fair that if some amalgamation is to take place, the details of that negotiating process, exactly who will be affected by this legislation and in what way, should be spelled out clearly to all those people who are now employees of what may be classified as port police, engineers or harbour police."
It seems to me we have the cart before the horse. When this legislation was originally proposed, the parliamentary assistant and I had a discussion about this. I said at that time, and I will put it on the record again, I have no problem with this bill. That is what Metro wants to do. Like most other pieces of municipal legislation, there are not yards of philosophical distances to be discussed or to be overcome. The legislation responds to what a municipality wants to do. I did say at the time the only problem I have with it is several people have called different members of our caucus saying: "We hear the bill is in place. We understand the process that is under way. We know many of the problems can be negotiated away."
This has gone on for a lengthy period of time. The negotiations are not yet concluded. As late as this afternoon, I had people calling me saying, "I do not know what my status is under this bill." I cannot give them a straight answer because the bill is permissive in its nature.
Strictly speaking, all of the negotiations around who will be taken in to Metro police, under what conditions, who will pick up the costs, whose benefits will be covered, who will have to buy into a pension plan -- all of which I suppose in terms of the Ontario Legislature are beyond our control and probably not even directly mentioned here -- are matters of real gut-rending concern to the individuals who are affected.
What it means is that there are people who are 45 and 50 years of age, who, to be blunt about it, normally would not now become employees of Metropolitan Toronto Police. They are a little over the hill in terms of how a police department defines its ideal candidate to become a police officer. It gets into that thorny question of civilians who work for anybody's police force. It gets into the stickier question of pensions and benefits and how those plans are negotiated and who pays.
The upshot of it all is very simply that in principle here is a bill that is very easy to take, but the ramifications of the bill are not easy to take. I tried to make those concerns known to the government very early when we were having initial discussions about this bill. I was given some assurances that negotiations were under way. For example, one individual who called me today was not aware of who was doing the negotiating. Were they negotiating with the agencies which represent these people? I think there are two or three identifiable groups, all of whom have a bargaining agent on their behalf. If that is true, then the individuals who are directly affected by it do not know about it. In my view, that is an unfair way to proceed.
I think there is an obligation on the part of all members here to make sure that every time we pass legislation which we are aware causes unfairness -- perhaps not directly, as might be argued in the case of the act before us; but when we know that, indirectly, individuals are going to be put into difficult situations because of the nature of this bill, it is our obligation to do something, whether we are from Metropolitan Toronto and these people are our constituents, or whether we are not from Metro but happen to know that there are human beings who are being used as pawns.
That is not to say there is bad intention on anybody's part. I have had some discussions with the government on the matter and it seems they have had ample notice of those negotiations.
Members on this side, and I am one of them, have attempted regularly to determine exactly what is the status of those negotiations and what is happening to these individuals. I know, for example, that if this bill passes this evening, and it may, the member for Riverdale is going to be extremely upset that he was ill today and unable to participate in this debate because, as has been pointed out, some of his people are directly affected by it.
I want to put the House on notice that I am unhappy those negotiations have not been successfully concluded. Frankly, I can find no fault in the principle of the bill. I have not talked to anybody who has a real problem with what is the stated intent of the legislation which is now before us, but the practical problems remain.
I want to say now that we will support the bill in principle on second reading. We will not support the bill on third reading unless we are satisfied that the individuals who --
Mr. Haggerty: You can't have it both ways, Mike.
Mr. Breaugh: Do you have a problem with this?
Mr. Haggerty: Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Breaugh: We will not support the bill on third reading until such time as we have a clear understanding that the individuals directly affected by this legislation have been treated fairly. I think that is a reasonable way to proceed.
It would be possible for us to provide a lengthy list of speakers on the bill. It is not our intention to do that.
Mr. Nixon: I want to hear Odoardo.
Mr. Breaugh: We have a request to hear the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo). I think that could be arranged. He is quite capable of giving you four or five hours on this one if you make the request.
Mr. Rotenberg: It was not my request.
Mr. Nixon: Anything would be better than this.
Mr. Breaugh: I thought so.
That is the problem with the bill. In reality, the problem is not with the principle of the bill and we will support it on second reading. The problem is the practical ramifications of human beings being directly affected by this type of legislation. We want to give the government one more opportunity to provide us with some assurances that they will be dealt with fairly in those ongoing negotiations and will not suffer because of the good intentions of the government of Ontario or, in this case, the government of Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members opposite. I understand the concerns raised by the various members of the New Democratic Party. I hope I can give them enough assurance tonight to satisfy them. If not, between tonight and when third reading comes a day or two from now, perhaps I will be able to give them more assurance.
As I understand the concerns, they fall into three categories. One, which was raised by the member for Riverdale, is the status of three men who are seamen under the harbour police. A second is that all those who are not employees of the harbour police or port police will get comparable jobs with the Metropolitan Toronto Police force. The third really is one that perhaps the port police do not have: the matter of the pension. Let me deal with those for a moment or two.
As far as status of the seamen is concerned, the problem raised by the member for Riverdale is correct. These three gentlemen had applied for and were not able to get status as police constables. When the member for Riverdale raised it, I called the chief of police and I have been in contact with him, the Metropolitan Toronto chairman and the chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police on all these matters.
9:30 p.m.
As a result of my conversations, made at the request of the member for Riverdale, we received the letter which the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) read to us. I was assured by the chief of police that, although these three gentlemen will not be given police constable status because they were not eligible for it, the Metropolitan Toronto Police force is creating a new job description for "seamen," which will be, if not exactly the same, similar to the status of seamen in the present Toronto Harbour Police.
Mr. Mackenzie: That was agreed to more than a year ago, so I don't know why we have the problem.
Mr. Rotenberg: I do not know why we have the problem either, but for some reason some wanted to get the three men police constable status. They could not get it, but they are going to get seaman status.
Second, as far as all getting jobs is concerned, it is true this is permissive legislation, but the amendment we are proposing, which we hope to bring in a little later on this evening, is in clause 175(5)(a) of the act and says, in effect, that all employees shall be offered employment at no loss in salary as a member of the metropolitan police force on October 1. All employees, no matter who they are, of the two boards, the Toronto Harbour Police and the Toronto port police, shall be offered jobs at no loss of salary.
We had a bit of a problem because the bill originally had it worded differently: "entitled to the same salary and benefits as a member of the metropolitan police force in a similar position." There was some problem as to how we would define "a similar position." We felt, I think correctly, that the employees are better protected when it says specifically that, no matter what their status is, there shall be no loss in salary. In other words, they are offered a job at least at the same salaries they have now in their present positions. Again, I have been assured by both the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto and the chief of police that they will all get that.
The one that has probably caused the biggest problem has been the pension plan. This is basically on the port police. Not all members of the port police and harbour police have a pension plan, and the pension plan does not have as rich a benefit package as the metropolitan police force pension plan has.
There is no question, and I think this was the question raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that those employees who now have paid into the Ontario municipal employees retirement system will get credits for all the pension they have paid up for. They will not lose anything. There is no question when they join the metropolitan police force that they will, for their future service, receive the benefits of the richer pension plan.
Where the controversy came about was whether somebody was going to pay back the money to top up the pension plan for the employees from the days when they were in the harbour police and the port police. Would someone pay the additional money so for all their service they would get the richer benefits of the metropolitan police force pension plan, not the benefits they paid for up until now and the richer plan from now on?
That is where the controversy arose, and we had a request from Metropolitan Toronto to put something in the bill which said Metropolitan Toronto did not have to do that. We had a request from the union which said Metropolitan Toronto had to do that. We feel frankly that is something that can be negotiated. If someone wishes to pay back for the topping up of the pension plan, that is great for the employees. But there is no question whatsoever that these employees will receive at least as much pension plan for service to date as they have paid for and they will receive the richer pension plan from that day on.
It is a matter of negotiation and, as Metropolitan Toronto has said, it does not want to pay for the topping up of the port police. The city of Toronto has indicated it is willing to pay for the harbour police, who in effect have been serving the city of Toronto. That is why subsection 175(6) in the amendment to the act indicates the city of Toronto may if it wishes pay into OMERS and not pay for the back service to top up the harbour police pension plan.
No one has come forward at this stage offering to pay for the port police. It is my understanding that, although the union has made this request on their behalf, the individual port police employees have indicated, as part of their part of the negotiation, they not only are happy to come in without having their pension plan topped up but also are willing to sign a waiver which in effect said Metropolitan Toronto was not responsible to top up their pension plan for past service.
I can understand the union wanting to get all the benefits it can for the employees, and the employees wanting to get it all. I think we can also understand why Metropolitan Toronto does not want to pay additional pensions for employees when they were not its employees.
My understanding is that everybody has agreed the pension plan for the port police will not be topped up, although it is desirable from some points of view.
Mr. Nixon: That is quite clear.
Mr. Rotenberg: I hope it is quite clear to the member over there who is interjecting.
The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) indicates that maybe we should not be passing this legislation unless agreements are signed. It is really a chicken-and-egg situation, because the Toronto Harbour Commissioners -- which is a federal agency, and we must recognize that the federal government has some obligation to protect its present employees -- and Metropolitan Toronto really cannot finalize the negotiations until Metropolitan Toronto has the power.
I think the negotiations have gone along far enough that I am convinced, having talked to all parties, there is sufficient protection for all employees, and I hope what I have indicated this evening will go a long way to convincing the members opposite.
As I said, the legislation is permissive to the extent that they do not have to enter into this agreement, but if they do enter into the agreement they must offer to all present employees a job paying at least the salary they now earn as employees of the harbour commission.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I will ask for second reading of this bill, and then this bill will have to go to committee of the whole House for several amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I think we have concluded the proceedings as set out on the Order Paper and as called by the acting government House leader. It would be our preference to do the committee of the whole House on this bill tomorrow afternoon for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we were going to go into committee of the whole on this bill as well as on some other bills today if there was sufficient time.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, Bills 12 and 13, although they are not on the printed list for today, are municipal bills left over from last week. Bill 12 has one minor amendment; Bill 13 has no amendments. I thought we had an agreement that we could deal with Bills 12 and 13 in the committee of the whole House at this time.
Interjection.
Mr. Rotenberg: I wanted to do Bills 12 and 13 first.
The Acting Speaker: We are proceeding with Bills 12 and 13 now?
Agreed to.
House in committee of the whole.
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 143a(1) of the act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, be amended by striking out "having a population of not less than 20,000, as determined under the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act," in the second and third lines.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the status distinction so that all municipalities of less than 20,000 people will have the same rights to issue debentures as those municipalities with more than 20,000 people. Bill 150, which has now had first reading before the House and which we will be dealing with in the fall session, will remove the status distinction for other debentures; this does it on the extendible and retractable debentures. We need both, but the other is coming in the other act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 12, as amended, reported.
9:40 p.m.
COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 13, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.
Mr. Chairman: I do not see any proposed amendments. Honourable parliamentary assistant, do you have any amendments?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask for this to go to committee of the whole; the New Democratic Party did. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) objected to one of the clauses and asked to put it in committee of the whole, but I have no amendments.
Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wish the New Democratic Party were organized enough to circulate their amendments, if they have some amendments to the bill. If not, I would suggest to you that we should deal with the various sections in the bill and go to third reading of the bill.
Mr. Rotenberg: To be fair, the member for Welland-Thorold objected to section 5. The purpose of section 5 is to allow all municipalities, not just upper-tier municipalities, to make grants to hospitals. He wished to vote against that section separately but not to make any amendments.
Mr. Chairman: Why don't you bring forward his argument when we get to section 5 then?
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 5:
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I am happy with it.
Mr. Chairman: I know you are.
Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Welland-Thorold objected to this section. That is why it is in committee.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Oshawa is sort of nodding in agreement. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, just so the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) does not get excited, we have not proposed an amendment, but we are objecting to section 5 and we would like the opportunity to vote against it. We see some difficulty with entering into this field.
The basic problem is one that we have identified in a number of areas. There is a wide range of programs traditionally seen to be essentially provincial in nature and, by and large, all the regulations for them are set by the province. Clearly, that jurisdiction has been marked as one that is provincial in nature. This small clause in section 5 specifically kind of bumps that over into the municipal field.
I understand that not all members may agree with us, but we feel that is unfair. Thin edge of the wedge though that might be, we feel it is important that it be noted as this legislation goes through that we object to having municipalities, in whatever way, shape or form, brought more and more into a field of indebtedness not of their own free will. They are none the less assuming the financial obligations of funding what traditionally has been a provincial program.
I understand that some may hesitate to do so, but I and my party feel it is important that the occasion be noted here. Each and every time we identify an area where there are what we feel clearly are areas of provincial responsibility, we will note them. What we are doing here is giving the municipalities the privilege of paying for a provincial program. We believe that is unfair and we will attempt, as many times as we can detect it, to note that unfairness. Although it might gall some, we will also vote against that unfairness.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this is permissive legislation. I guess the member for Oshawa and I have different views on permissive legislation.
Basically, we have been rationalizing all the grants because we want to let every municipality get every grant that every other municipality can. Up until now there have been some restrictions on grants to hospitals. We feel anybody who wants to give a grant to a hospital should be able to do so. If the upper and lower tiers wish to share or if the lower-tier municipality wishes to give a grant to a hospital within its own borders or to a hospital that is just outside its border which it serves, the municipality should be able to do so.
Granted, health care is a provincial responsibility, but the capital cost of hospitals traditionally has not been a total provincial responsibility. The capital cost has been shared in community campaigns. Where a community wants to have a hospital, there has been a fund-raising campaign within the community, and the local municipality traditionally has participated in that fund- raising campaign, both from the point of view of boosting it and by paying part of the cost.
All this bill does is simply say that the local municipality may, if it wishes, participate in the campaign. There is no compulsion on it to do so. We feel it is then up to the municipalities and not up to this government to say who can and cannot contribute to the capital cost of the hospital.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on section 5 of the bill, which proposes to repeal the present subsection 66(1) of the act: "The county may pass bylaws for granting aid for the construction, erection, establishment, acquisition, maintenance, equipping and carrying on the business of public hospitals including municipal hospitals and other health care facilities in the county and may issue debentures therefore, and no area municipality shall exercise any such powers in respect of public hospitals including municipal hospitals."
From my days on county council, I recall it was always a practice there that the county could participate in sharing the cost of constructing a new wing or a new hospital within the county boundaries in a municipality, city, town or village, and even outside the county boundaries.
This is going back some 20 years; I can recall the policy set up then. The county of Welland paid some of the cost of constructing a new hospital in the town of Dunnville. It was based upon a per-diem-rate usage of a certain number of residents from the west end of the county. It also shared in the cost of construction of some of the hospital facilities at the St. Catharines General Hospital and the Greater Niagara General Hospital. So it is nothing new; this policy has always been in effect.
At that time, counties could share in the cost of providing health care services for residents within a county structure. Sometimes the cities and larger municipalities would have to bear the complete cost of constructing or maintaining the hospital. In this way everybody who made some use of the facilities was paying or carrying some of his or her share.
Fort Erie had one of the first hospitals in the area, the Douglas Memorial Hospital. The former township of Bertie used to share the cost of operating that hospital on a per diem rate with Port Colborne. So it is nothing new, and I think it is a good practice.
I have to support this amendment, which is permissive in its intent. If in the wisdom of local council they want to share in that, then local autonomy is working again; if they work on that basis, there is no need for regional government. The government is bringing around some form of regional views that all the people within a certain area, a county or two counties, can share in health care services.
I think it is a good approach, and it does not cause any grief or hardship for any community such as the ill feelings that followed when the government brought in regional government in Niagara by joining the two counties in the Niagara Peninsula. I suggest there are still wounds to be healed in that area. The services were already provided on a regional basis without the heavy burden of the bureaucratic body that is there today. There is a good lesson to be learned from that. I can accept the proposed amendment.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 13 reported.
On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment and one bill without amendment.
The House recessed at 9:51 p.m.
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONCLUDED)
10:15 p.m.
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
The Deputy Speaker: We will dispense with the prayer. To refresh everyone's memory, we are voting on Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade, along with a proposed amendment, a reasoned amendment. No, we do not say that. Ring the bells and we will worry about the details later.
The House divided on the question, "Shall the bill now be read a second time?" which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Boudria, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McKessock, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller G. I., Mitchell;
Newman, Nixon, Norton, Peterson, Piché,
Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruston, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, McClellan, Philip, Samis.
Ayes 76; nays 15.
Ordered for third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my understanding that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) wanted to go back into committee of the whole House. No? Has he changed his mind?
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The House can do anything with unanimous consent. What do you want to do?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on the question of committee of the whole, I raised some discussion earlier today about a standard amendment on the annual report. We agreed to put it off until tomorrow, so that should stand. Perhaps we should recess for the evening.
The Deputy Speaker: We have a problem. It was ordered for third reading. Can we unorder that?
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Are we going to worry about that tomorrow? Tomorrow is another day.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.