Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I should like the members to welcome to the House 22 students from the Sacred Heart School in La Salle, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Durocher and Mrs. Benisch.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 96, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents Sixty-Five Years of Age and over.

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Ontario School Trustees’ Council Act.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the amendments to this Ottawa-Carleton Act have been established to balance a school board representation which we have considered between ourselves. As regards its purpose, does the minister have in mind putting forward English-French balance with the changes in the representation, or what is the concept of the changes that have been brought forward?

I thought I would simply mention that matter, since it might possibly be the bill need not go to committee if there is a reasonable response as to the purpose of the changes that have been put forward. We don’t want to impede the changes that have been requested, particularly by the representatives in the local area, but it is that matter that I thought I would put forward. My colleague the member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) may want to add something further, but that is the only matter that was concerning us.

Mr. Speaker: Any further speakers? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre): Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, we intend to oppose this bill and we intend to divide the House on it as well.

It seems to me that the ministry, which was forewarned by myself and possibly by other people as well about the intent of the bill, should have sent it back to the school board. It should, if nothing else, have simply left the existing and very inadequate electoral system --

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Just on the member’s recommendation?

Mr. Cassidy: On the recommendation of a lot of people in the area, Mr. Speaker. I want just to say that the bill represents the culmination of two years of frustration in trying to get an adequate electoral system that would be representative of the public school electors for the board of education in the city of Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are other members from Ottawa in this House.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): They can express their opinion.

Mr. Cassidy: I have been involved with this for some time, Mr. Speaker. The minister has never voted in an Ottawa election and doesn’t know the kind of frustration the people have had year after year with an at-large system in which people had to vote for 12 candidates on an at-large basis.

Ottawa is a city of 300,000 and that means there is an electorate of something around 100,000 or 115,000 or 120,000 voting on an at-large basis. They were normally confronted with a tremendous number of candidates. The difficulties in understanding what the candidates were about, who they stood for, who they represented, where they came from, what they would do, and in holding them accountable, were enormous.

One of the consequences, Mr. Speaker, has been that the safest way to get onto the Ottawa Board of Education has been to have a name that began with an A or a B or a C or a D. There was a tremendous bias in favour of people whose names appeared alphabetically at the top of the list. In fact, on the current board of education the person furthest down the list, as I recall, is Dr. Alan Murdoch. His name begins with an M and he was very lucky to get in. Nobody with a name which began with a letter lower in the alphabet than M managed to get himself elected, but Abell and Beatty and Bushfield and Dobel, people like this, were easily elected. There has been a bias in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in Ottawa have been concerned about the unrepresentativeness of the board of education, about the unresponsiveness, about the difficulty in getting it to get things done; and about the difficulty in getting through to the board of education and so on. At the last election, the unanimous view of people who were trying to make some changes in the board of education was that they would be willing to take their chances in making those changes if there was a decent electoral system.

So at the last election there were two or three groups that sprang up that sought to publish a slate. They were unhappy about publishing a slate but they published a slate because as far as the general public was concerned there simply wasn’t any other way to work out the players. The teachers published a slate. A committee for a better board of education, with which I was involved with many others of all political parties, published and advertised a slate. This slate helped govern election of some of the people of the school board.

Unfortunately, even those people who were involved in slate-making made mistakes, I would say in my judgement. In other words some of the people whom they elected were not the kind of people they had hoped. That was because of the problems that even a group of interested citizens who wanted to spend a lot of time at it had in piecing together a good board of education from 45 candidates. The phenomenon of having a lot of candidates isn’t new. We had just as many at the 1969 elections as we did in 1972 and, clearly, had the at-large system across the city continued, that would have continued too.

Mr. Speaker, my own personal feeling was that the Ottawa Board of Education’s 12 public school representatives should be elected on a ward basis, and as it happens there would have been a fairly easy division. There were 12 wards in Ottawa and since a couple of those wards have a very strong Catholic population, they could have absorbed the voters from Rockcliffe and from Vanier, which were also relatively small in terms of electorate.

Under the chairmanship of trustee Don Francis, a committee appointed by the board to look into the electoral system worked from the beginning of 1973 to devise an improved electoral system. This committee held a series of hearings; it received briefs from home and school and other groups across the city. It was in contact with every home and school and PTA; it was in contact with the schools, with the teachers, with community groups, with anybody else who it felt would have an interest in the electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, there was a consensus which emerged from that committee very strongly. People felt they did not wish to risk the parochialism, as they called it, of having a ward system. They also felt they wished to have representatives with whom they could keep in contact and who would represent a specific area of the city, rather than having people only elected on an at-large basis.

The committee documented, as perhaps the minister is aware, the fact that under the at-large system Ottawa has had, I think it is four of the trustees come from Alta Vista, a prosperous suburb of Ottawa; another one comes from Rockcliffe, a community of 650 or 700 souls; the remainder also come from the advantaged, better-off suburban areas of Ottawa.

If you want to put it on a ward basis, Mr. Speaker, there is not a single trustee who comes from the four downtown or inner city wards of Ottawa; not a single trustee comes from that particular area. They all come from the suburbs in the east end or in the west end of town. That doesn’t mean they don’t come from the slums; there are some very good residential areas in parts of these four inner city wards, but there isn’t a single representative who knows anything directly about the inner city schools.

Were it not for the chairman of the board, Jane Dobell, who comes from Rockcliffe, but who has taken a particular interest in the downtown schools of Ottawa, there wouldn’t be a single trustee on the board, I think, who really gives a damn. I think that’s probably a bit tough because there are two or three others, but there is a very strong tendency to ignore the needs of the older part of the city.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, recommended very strongly that there be a three-zone system in Ottawa and that each zone have four wards or thereabouts, approximately. There would have been an east end zone, a central zone and western zone and this would have assured that the inner city schools which are not now represented by their own trustees would have had four trustees representing them, and likewise the west and the east end.

This proposal went before the school board, but the board of education used every procedural device in the book in order to try and avoid leaving the present at-large system. They used those techniques because the trustees wanted the advantages, to them, of election on an at-large system; and they did so in contempt for the electorate of Ottawa, for the people, the parents and the electors of Ottawa.

First they came down to the minister and said: “We want to sit for four years rather than for two years; we want to double our term.” And the minister said: “No.” That was by resolution of the board.

Then they came back to the minister again and they said: “Well here is our latest proposal. We want to have half of the board elected every two years in order to help make the election more comprehensible.” In other words, they wanted to have six trustees elected on an at-large basis every two years, rather than 12; and everybody when elected would last for four years. That, fortunately, was also rejected by the minister. It is not in line with government policy.

But then, Mr. Speaker, faced finally with the strong recommendation of their committee, and the strong recommendation of community groups and other people concerned with the matter from right across the city, that they have three zones, the school board decided that it would still do its best to thwart the wishes of people who had taken concern with this matter and it would have a two zone system rather than a three zone system.

The two zone system that it is recommending right now is very neatly devised, Mr. Speaker. In the eastern zone they include the wards of By-St. Georges and Capital, from the inner city or the down- town part of Ottawa; and they include Vanier and Rockcliffe-Rideau ward, Alta Vista ward and Gloucester ward. Now Rideau, Alta Vista and Gloucester wards are all in the suburban parts of the city, and they along with Rockcliffe and Vanier will effectively control the choice of trustees in that eastern zone. The Glebe, which contains a lot of parents who are concerned about education, will have voting power of about one-fifth in that particular community. The ward of By-St. Georges is largely French and largely Catholic and therefore it will elect a separate school trustee to the board; its public school electors will also be swamped.

The other zone takes in the wards of Wellington, which I used to represent, Dalhousie, Elmdale-Victoria, Queensborough, Britannia and Carleton in the western part of the city. There again, the suburban votes will far outweigh the central city votes. The central city has been truncated into two, and the situation for people who are concerned about older schools in the older part of the area will be identical to what it is right now, that is they will have very great difficulty in having their own people elected, in having trustees who will respond to them, in having trustees who will even know about the situation in the centre of the city.

The recommendation to the committee, Mr. Speaker, was for three zones and that would have assured that those four central wards, By-St. Georges, Capital, Dalhousie and Wellington, would have had their own trustees. It was fair in terms of representation, it was fair in terms of population, it was fair in terms of what people wanted, it was fair in terms of local acceptance of a balance between the need for local representation and a fear of the parochialism that people said might arise out of a ward system; but it was rejected by the school board.

The amazing coincidence, Mr. Speaker, is this: That while not a single trustee lived within the four wards of the central zone that was proposed, and therefore while the trustees feared that they would I not have a place to run in the next election, there are I think the figures are accurate, six trustees who live in the proposed eastern zone and six trustees who live in the proposed western zone, and they will therefore be able to run as incumbents in the two zones being created by the school board.

This is as self-serving measure as we have seen in local government for a heck of a time. I think it is wrong that the minister did not take account of that, did not have his people look into it closely, and I did not tell them to come back with a system which would not have deprived a major area of the city of representation.

Even though the minister comes from Scar- borough, he must surely be aware that, among other things, there are problems in any election, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, in terms of the degree of turnout of people who vote between suburban areas and older residential areas. That’s why the Tories have controlled the strip ridings in central Toronto for so long; while people south of Bloor are more numerous, they don’t turn out to vote as highly. We know that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is because they are good members.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister should see some of the trustees we have in Ottawa to believe it. If they were good trustees, then they could win re-election under the proposed three-zone system. There is no reason why people like Trustee Jane Dobell or Trustee Don Francis, who live in the suburban areas of the city, could not have run in the central zone; they have borne in mind the needs of the central zone, and they would have had a very good chance of getting themselves elected.

The bill itself is weak, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn’t even say that the trustees must avoid a gerrymander. Under this bill they could put two wards into one zone and 10 wards into another zone; and that would fit the requirements of the bill, even though it took three votes to elect a trustee in one area and only one vote to elect a trustee in another area. That is permitted under the terms of this particular bill.

On the basis of philosophy it seems to me that when we do municipal legislation in this House we create the structure for democratic government. We create the possibility of autonomy at the municipal or the board of education level. The better the democratic structure we create, it seems to me, the more reliance we should put on local people to do a good job of faithfully representing their constituents and faithfully making decisions on their behalf.

That is why, in any major city, we must have a ward system in order to ensure that people are fairly and truly represented at the municipal level and to prevent the over-representation of certain areas or classes at the expense of others.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, where the people, after due and careful consideration, have come up with a proposal which is certainly a reasonable proposal that bears in mind the need to fairly represent all areas, all sectors and all classes of the community, the province ought to have accepted that rather than going along with a self-serving proposal from the board of education.

I know what’s going to happen. We’re going to have 20 or 25 candidates running in each of these two zones. We’re going to have the equivalent of two at-large elections where we had one before. The situation will remain almost as confusing as it was before. My hope is that despite the retrograde actions of the ministry, people in Ottawa will be able to get to a true zone system or even to a true ward system within the next two or four years. But it seems to me that it’s wrong and very frustrating for the ministry to simply support local school board trustees, who are much more concerned about their own electoral fortunes than about providing adequate representation of all the people within the board of education of Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the bill and we will divide the House on this particular bill unless the minister agrees that he will withdraw the bill and either bring forward another one in the fall or make the necessary amendments at this time.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments concerning Bill 109 and, while I am making the comments, to bring to the attention of the minister some of the confusion that is caused in a community when we have individuals running sort of at-large for one elective office and others running under a ward system.

In the city of Windsor, prior to recent years, three of the elected officials on council were elected under a ward system and five at-large; eventually it was changed so that all eight member of council are elected on an at-large basis.

When elections are held on an at-large basis, there is the possibility of misrepresentation of a portion of the community. In fact, under the system in the community now, all eight elected officials come from the east side of the community and there really isn’t anyone who represents the west side or who lives on the west side. I would assume that the elected officials would, in their wisdom, attempt to represent fairly all segments of the community. But when one lives in a given area one is substantially more familiar with that area and as a result can present the issues, the concerns, of the people in that given area.

What the government is doing by this legislation really is creating two large ward areas in the city of Ottawa. I don’t propose to oppose this, but I want to bring to the attention of the minister the problems that are involved.

As the previous speaker mentioned, when it comes to campaigning for an election there is a decided advantage for the individual whose name begins with the lowest letter of the alphabet. I understand that even on a three-candidate race there is a 2 1/2 per cent advantage to have your name the first name on the ballot. Not that that really is of much concern, Mr. Speaker, but with six representatives to be elected more than likely you are going to have somewhere between 20 and 30 names on the ballot.

If we want the public to really be concerned, we want them to be familiar with the policies, the backgrounds and so forth of each of the candidates running for elective office. It is hard, even in a provincial or a federal campaign, to get across to the electorate the backgrounds, the concerns, the policy, the programmes of three political parties. Imagine 20 people running for six seats on the board of education in one half of a community and another 20 running for that same type of elective office in the other half of the community. It does cause a lot of confusion, Mr. Speaker; it does decrease public participation.

I think, and I stand to be corrected, that the lowest percentage turnout on the part of electorates voting for an elective office is on the board of education level. Yet this is probably the most essential portion of the elective offices. It is the one we should be by far more concerned about than we are today. Yet, you see, the public does not turn out in the numbers that they should because they don’t know, and rather than come along and select six candidates, you will find that they will know one or two candidates and will be voting only for those.

I would have preferred really to have representation as close to the people as possible and use the ward system. My own community doesn’t do it; that was the wish of the people. As a result, as I have mentioned previously, you have had all eight elected members of city council coming from the one portion of the community, the east side.

But, Mr. Speaker, the board of education in its wisdom wanted true representation and as a result each member of the board is elected on a ward basis. You have eight elected officials on the public school board, one from each of the eight wards. In that way the representatives of a ward knows the problem of the ward and is able to present it to the board when it does assemble with some knowledge and some concern. I would think, Mr. Speaker, you get by far better representation, you get by far better public concern, the home and school and parent-teachers associations now do know to whom they can go to funnel their concern about schooling and the school system. When it comes to an at-large system, it is extremely difficult.

I know, Mr. Speaker, as do you, that you have the citizenry telephoning and asking who is the alderman for this area; or who is the member of the board of education for a given area. They have difficulty knowing; and if you go into an at-large system it is far more difficult.

It is better for democracy if we can come along and have the people closer to their elected official, and I think you do have them much closer when you use a ward system rather than an at-large system. I know there is always the comment that the individual is only concerned for his little portion of the community and so he tends to be isolated and is sort of, as they say sometimes, a ward heeler.

It isn’t necessarily so. Anyone elected to public office is concerned for the community at large.

Mr. Speaker, I make these few comments not opposing the bill, because this was the wish of the board, but to show the minister some of the problems it can create.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to this bill? The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about this bill.

Basically, as I understand the amendments proposed here in the House, the school board in Ottawa has decided to split the city in half. Unfortunately one part, section 1, subsection 3(a) I think, is somewhat vague in the sense that it states it shall include, for instance, “The city of Vanier, the village of Rockcliffe Park and such other wards as the city of Ottawa and the Ottawa board determines.” I think it should have been more specific as to exactly where the line is going to run.

In any event, as I understand it, the board members have decided basically to split the city in half and have six people running in each of the sections. Having done that, I see it as an improvement over the previous system; but I’m concerned -- and I don’t quite understand -- why the board did not decide to go all the way and go to a ward system. I’m trying to see the logic of their proposal here and I’m trying, in some ways I suppose, to guess what these individuals had in mind.

We’ve heard some comments here in the Legislature that what is happening is that some of the trustees are trying to protect their own positions. I’m not sure their proposal here is an effective way of doing it although I suppose it’s a more effective way of doing it than if they were running a ward system across the city.

In any event, hopefully the electors of the city of Ottawa are sensible enough that if they feel certain trustees are not doing their work or not properly representing the people of the area, whether it’s on this basis or a ward system or at large, they’ll see to it that these individuals are not elected.

As I understand it, the advantage that I see in this system is it would appear that the dividing line seems to lump together the east end of the city in one area, including the city of Vanier and the village of Rockcliffe; and the other division in the city seems to include the western end of the city. On that basis, the advantage I see is that in the eastern end of the city, as in the western end, certain communities have traditionally been grouped together, whether it’s in provincial or federal ridings. In that sense, at least for the eastern end of the city which I know better, Mr. Speaker, there will be a community or a grouping of certain individuals with like background with people who have, hopefully, aspirations which are in common; and they will get an opportunity to elect some of their own.

For instance, I look at the city of Vanier, the village of Rockcliffe again is a community which has sent a representative representing its own. Hopefully the lower town, Sandy Hill, and certain parts of Overbrook again, where the franco-Ontarian community is strong, will be able to elect some of their representatives to that board.

As I say I’m trying, again, to find more logic in their approach. Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the elections at the municipal level, where they’re lumped in with school board elections, it became at one point -- and still is -- a pretty ridiculous process in the sense of having lists of candidates. I would have hoped we would, at this level, try to bring some method to what is a sort of madness.

We know, first of all, the percentage of electors at that level is very low. Secondly, because of the limitations on money and the publicity that goes forth, whether one is trying to get elected as an alderman or trying to get elected to the school board, there is a limitation on expenditures to make oneself well known. And in that sense, I suppose people who are already on the board have that distinct advantage of being better known.

But when you have this fantastic list of electors, I think this government surely could have looked at the whole system to try to make it more effective, in fact truly representative as a democracy should be. I am concerned when an electorate comes along and looks at a whole list of possible candidates, that many electors are just voting blindly. As my colleague has mentioned, very often your place on the list becomes extremely important.

I would have hoped that while making changes we would have directed ourselves in a direction to bring some improvement.

Mr. Speaker, this party has for years advocated local autonomy. If the Ottawa Board of Education and the local electors have decided they want this particular system, it seems to me that we here should not stand up and oppose them and say: “You don’t know what you want. You are not doing the right thing. We think that we should tell you how you should be elected.”

Those individuals have been elected locally. They have made that decision. As I understand it, the decision of the board was in fact overwhelming. We don’t take the position at this stage that we --

Mr. Cassidy: After every other method has been tried.

Mr. Roy: We feel, Mr. Speaker, that we should not oppose the bill. I appreciate the fact that certain individuals, by proceeding in this particular fashion, might well be protecting their position. But nevertheless, it seems to me that when a resolution of this type is passed -- as I understand it the vote was something like 10 to one -- it is not for us to dispute it once a request is made to the province that this is the procedure that they want.

As much as we would like to see them go much further on the ward system -- and I am sure that is the approach the government was leaning toward -- nevertheless, I think it is not for us to say: “Well, we think you are doing the wrong thing and we will not permit you to do this.”

Mr. Cassidy: You’re supporting the Tories.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we are not supporting the Tories, or voting against the NDP. We are just looking at a particular bill requested by a particular group of individuals elected at the local level -- just as the members are elected -- and it seems to us that if they vote --

Mr. Cassidy: It is a self-serving move. That is why the trustees voted 10 to 1.

Mr. Roy: Self-serving? Well, the member can see all sorts of things in the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: It is self-serving.

Mr. Roy: The NDP doesn’t have the inside track on genius. These people are elected, Mr. Speaker. We feel that they are elected and that is what they want --

Mr. Cassidy: The member has wriggled and writhed to avoid the mandate of the people.

Mr. Roy: As much as we would like to propose certain alternatives and as much as we would like the government to have gone further on this, we feel that we have always protected local autonomy and can do no less here. I find it strange that the party on my left --

Mr. Cassidy: The member is talking one way and voting another.

Mr. Roy: -- professing to support local autonomy to a degree, should act like a sort of guardian of this province.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t support them when they act like puppet autocrats.

Mr. Roy: We don’t want to say to the people that they don’t know what they want and we are going to tell them how to go about doing things.

Mr. Lewis: The member is senseless, he is senseless.

Mr. Cassidy: We are responding to what the people said.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we take the position that in spite of the fact that we would like to have seen the board go further, that we will not oppose this bill.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just to review the background of some of the events leading up to this bill. I have had several meetings with the Ottawa board. Incidentally, I feel it is a very progressive board; one of the fine boards of this province. I think that some of the things that the Ottawa board does -- and I think the hon. member would have to agree with this -- certainly indicate that they are one of the forward thinking boards in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t disagree with that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I met with them on several occasions to review their procedures concerning election of trustees. I think they view with concern the election at large of 12 members from the whole area. They see the problems. I certainly can sympathize with them in having a name starting with W. I have always seen my name at the bottom of the ballot until the last election, when an independent decided to run whose name was Wright.

Mr. Lewis: It hasn’t hurt the minister very much, I might say.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right -- and that is the point. It doesn’t necessarily have to hurt you.

Mr. Cassidy: No, there is a statistical collusion in Ottawa.

Mr. Lewis: Even Arthur Wishart is chuckling. It didn’t hurt him either.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, all we Ws haven’t done too badly.

The fact of the matter is we had a meeting as a result of the committee that the Ottawa board set up. The gist of the discussion at that particular meeting, as I recall, was that the board wished to have a four-year term in Ottawa and elect six of the trustees at large every two years. I indicated to them, first, that it wasn’t government policy to agree to a four-year term; that in the Municipal Elections Act the policy had been set for a standard two-year term across this province; and therefore this would be inconsistent with that, plus the fact that electing half every two years at large would not solve their problem. They would still be electing X number of trustees at large over the whole area and probably would just duplicate the long list of trustees.

We discussed many alternatives, including the ward system. I asked them to go back and to come forward with some kind of recommendation, and if they could bring forward a recommendation we would implement an amendment to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act. I received correspondence indicating that after discussion and meetings of that committee and meetings of the board various steps, I presume, had been taken. The result of all this was that by a vote of 10 to 1 the board asked for a division, six from half the city and six from the other half, one of those groupings to include Vanier and Rockcliffe Park.

Mr. Speaker, having received this request from the Ottawa board and having given my guarantee to the board at the meeting that if they came forward with a proposal we would amend the Act accordingly, we are now amending the Act. If the board of education of the city of Ottawa wishes to come forward with a ward system, I’ll be very happy to come into this House and amend the legislation for them whenever they wish, to bring that forward.

Mr. Cassidy: But the minister never looked behind it, did he?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I should also tell my friend that in this House the city of Ottawa is represented by about five members. As; I judge it four of them seem to be in favour of the action that is being taken in this bill today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister only heard from two.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 109. Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Cassidy: No.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly not.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 109, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Auld Beckett Bennett Bernier Birch Breithaupt Brunelle Campbell Carruthers Downer Edighoffer Ewen Gaunt Gilbertson Good Havrot Henderson Hodgson (North York) Irvine Jessiman Lane Lawrence Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McKeough McNeil Miller Morningstar Morrow Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Brant) Nuttall Parrott Reilly Rhodes Riddell Rollins Root Roy Ruston Sargent Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Stewart Taylor Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Welch Wells Winkler Worton Yaremko -- 59.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Davison Deans Dukszta Ferrier Laughren Lewis MacDonald Martel Renwick Young -- 13.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 59, the “nays” 13.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, we felt that since the bill dealt with changes to clauses, rather than take the time of the House with second reading debate, it would make more sense to have it go immediately into committee, or to go into committee and deal with it there.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand this will then go into committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this bill, and would pose a number of inquiries to the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Walker) about the bill.

First of all, it appears to be merely a housekeeping bill, but nevertheless we thought it proper to make a few comments in relation to the question of inspectors. I think it should be brought to the attention of the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Speaker, that there have been problems in relation to inspectors, at least in eastern Ontario. I recall reading some time ago, and discussing with some people -- for instance, in the riding of Prescott-Russell -- that they were having great difficulty in getting inspectors. In fact it was stated by some of the officials in the area that there was a lack of inspectors in the whole of eastern Ontario. I think it is important to point out to the parliamentary assistant that if that situation exists for any length of time, it frustrates the very purpose of having rules and regulations if they cannot be enforced by inspectors. I would like to hear the comments of the parliamentary assistant about that particular situation and whether he intends to correct it. In fact, I would like to know whether there have been problems in other areas of the province, because if there have been problems there, possibly there has been the same situation.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker: It’s not very logical to have rules and regulations for the protection of the public if they cannot be enforced because of a lack of inspectors. I think that we should look at that question very closely.

The second thing that I would like to comment on is the immunity of the inspectors appointed at the provincial level. Subsection 2c(1) provides that there is immunity for acts done in good faith by inspectors appointed at the provincial level.

It’s obvious that such protection is necessary if these inspectors are to enforce public health in this province. I notice that under the Act they can obtain an ex-parte order if there is any opposition to them entering premises.

While we recognize the sanctity of individual premises, it is important that the inspectors be granted this immunity if they are to be effective and if they are to be encouraged to act without fear of reprisal or court action, be is criminal or otherwise, at a later stage. I take it that the legislation protects them against civil actions in relations to acts done in good faith.

Having done that, I don’t see anything in the bill that protects the inspectors from the local boards, and possibly the parliamentary assistant could point out to me where this is in the bill. If the inspectors appointed at the provincial level have this immunity, why would not the inspectors of the local boards of health be protected as well? I would like to hear the assistant’s comments in this respect.

If this is something we have missed in the bill, surely it should be included. I think the parliamentary assistant will agree that having given this immunity at the provincial level, it should be given as well to inspectors at the local level acting in good faith. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant’s comments about this.

I notice that the bill also states that every medical officer of health shall cease to hold office upon attaining 65 years of age. That’s in section 5(2). On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments, which I suppose are limited to Ottawa.

The parliamentary assistant is aware that in the past there apparently has been some conflict between some agencies at the provincial level and the public health officer in the city of Ottawa in relation to the environment. and perhaps we could have his comments on that. Time and again there seems to have been this conflict especially related to the closing of the beaches in the Ottawa area. Year after year, the beaches are closed by the public health officer, while other people at the provincial level seem to suggest that there is not a community of thought about whether he is justified in doing so.

The other conflict that seems to have existed lately in Ottawa is that the medical officer of health apparently has taken it upon himself to fire a nutritionist. There has been quite a protest in this particular situation, basically because when people went to see him to get certain information, he was not open to the public. He said he was not available.

I would think that directives should be sent out to the public officer of health in each area, or the medical officer of health, dealing with procedures when decisions are made. Sometimes they are making decisions which affect a large number of people, for instance when you are dealing with the closing of beaches or when you are dealing with something in relation to certain individuals who are fired, or people like that.

I am not questioning the good faith of this individual. In fact, in relation to the question of beaches he seems to have been right because we have found out lately that certain tests made by agencies, in fact agencies from the University of Ottawa, have shown that he was justified in closing certain of these beaches because they had, in fact, bacteria which could cause brain damage. But when it comes to making important decisions, I think it is important for these people who have positions of responsibility to relieve any apprehension or any question that the public might have about their actions by being open to the public.

I think any official who has public standing, or has a position as important as a medical officer of health, should make it a duty that when he does make decisions, when he does do one thing or another, that he is in a position to justify these and to let the public know. In that sense I think he should be more accessible to the public, be it through the press or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see in the bill as well that the government -- and this is not only related to this bill, but other bills that we have talked about -- has consistently accepted the position of this party that when important decisions are made affecting the rights of individuals, whether it be closing up his restaurant, whether you are doing this, whether you are closing up another shop, or whether you are affecting his rights, very often you are affecting his livelihood and rights of appeal should be included in the legislation.

For instance, in this particular legislation I read in section 8 that not only the decision is handed to the individual but the reasons for the decision. I think that for anybody who works or has anything to do with our process of legislation, with the process of natural justice, it is important that individuals or the public generally accept the fact that things are being done, decisions are being made, that not only are just, but appear to be just.

I think the only way you can do this is that when having made an important decision, Mr. Speaker, give reasons for it. There should be no problem when a decision is made if the decision is supported by reasons for it. Then the individual is in the position either to challenge those reasons or to accept the reasons as being valid when he seeks advice.

I am glad to see that this is in the legislation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we discussed this in the whole Health Disciplines Act. In fact, we amended it to include these aspects that when decisions are made the individual knows why. I think this is basic, and I can’t understand, Mr. Speaker, why this was not in previous legislation. I would only say to the parliamentary assistant, I am glad to see it in this legislation.

I query another matter in this bill, and that is whether reasons are necessary, or should be given as well, when decisions are made at the local level. I must admit that there are a number of sections which are merely housekeeping in this. Having gone through the bill I haven’t seen this, and I would like to hear the comments of the parliamentary assistant about that -- that even if you are giving, in fact, rights to challenge a particular decision, whether it is made at the provincial level or at the local level.

I don’t see anything in this bill here for giving reasons at the local level and I would like to know from the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Speaker, whether there is anything in fact in the other legislation, in the Public Health Act, that is not in this bill, which provides for that.

So I think there are two important points for the parliamentary assistant to keep in mind when it comes to local boards. These are, first of all, if the government grants immunity at the provincial level for these inspectors, why doesn’t it do it at the local level? Secondly, if in fact the government is saying to the inspectors or officials at the provincial level, “Yes, you can make decisions, you can do this and you can do that, but you must give reasons,” I think it should be the same at the local level. So I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant’s comments on this bill in relation to these queries, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points I would like to make. Maybe they would be easier to make at the committee stage; it wouldn’t take too long, but I will ask for the bill to go to the committee stage.

I would like to make just two overall points on this bill, and they are both related to the present situation in the city of Toronto in which the board of health is in conflict in many respects with the medical officer of health.

The difficulty arises here in that they don’t have enough responsibility or enough power to exert pressure over the medical officer of health who is nominated largely by the government. In spite of what the government has been saying about regionalizing and shifting some of the responsibility for the health matters to the local municipalities and to the regions, this has not been implemented at all at the level of the local boards of health. Especially it has not been recommended here.

The conflict which arises in Toronto is a very significant one. It is a conflict between a local board, which believes very strongly that certain things need to be done about the lead poisoning or lead problems in industries in different situations in the city of Toronto and the medical officer of health who with the best of intentions appears at the moment from all the reports to be in direct conflict with the board. Something which should be considered, maybe not in this bill before us but in a future one, is whether some of the responsibilities of the medical officers of health should now be shifted directly to the local boards.

The second point is easier to implement. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would consider this as a possible amendment. If he is granting immunity to the inspectors, should he not consider granting immunities at the same time to members of the board? It would make it easier on two points. I notice that the bill mentions a number of people who should be appointed from the non-elected officials, from the ratepayer groups or otherwise from the residents of the area. It would make it easier for them to fulfil their task if those people, just as much as the appointed members from the elected officials, had immunity in the same way as the inspectors have.

Again, in the city of Toronto there is a definite paralysis that occurs in terms of will or intention by the board members because they take into account that they may be taken to court over a number of decisions. What happened with the lead cases here is a good example of this problem. I have had a number of discussions with the members of the Toronto board of health, and it has become a major factor which stops people from proceeding much further. Also it becomes a major problem for them in terms of legal costs and everything else.

I realize that the first point I mentioned is a point which will probably need to be enshrined in another bill. I wonder on the second point whether the parliamentary assistant would consider making it an amendment and extending immunity not only to the inspectors, as rightly so, but also to the members of the board.

Lastly, I would like to send the bill to committee so that we can discuss a couple of other points. Otherwise we shall vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak on the bill? The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments with respect to this bill, and they really follow along on the lines of one of the points made by the hon. member for Parkdale.

I would agree entirely that there seems to be a very definite conflict between the board and the medical officer of health in many municipalities throughout this province. In the area from which I come, I see this happening every day. I think the parliamentary assistant should relay to the minister this information so that a review of this entire structure can be undertaken. I think it’s very important.

The thing is that the regulations under these Acts seem to be more important than the Acts themselves. The medical officer of health is a person who considers himself to be an employee of the province. If the regulation is there, and the Act is there, it really doesn’t matter what the local board says.

The medical officer of health feels that he has a duty to the province to carry out the Act and the regulations as he sees fit. The board doesn’t really have much say in it, other than to pay his salary. I think there is a real problem here, not only in the city of Toronto, but in many other areas as well.

I’ll give the minister a few examples that have been drawn to my attention. He may consider them small and, perhaps, even petty, but I think they are symptomatic of the whole problem in this area.

For instance, in our area we had a campaign, conducted by the medical officer of health, to inspect every business selling ice cream. We did that, and if the sellers didn’t have a facility with continuous running water to wash the scoop, they were simply told that they couldn’t sell any more ice cream. That may be so, technically -- you can get into the business of germs and bacteria and all that stuff -- but the fact of the matter is if it was so bad how did we make it this far? We’re pretty healthy in Huron county.

Mr. Roy: In fact the health in the county is higher than any place in the province.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They’re exceptionally healthy in Huron county.

Mr. Gaunt: If that kind of thing is that bad, and if it’s that serious now, how come we’ve made it this far?

The fact of the matter is that it may be a problem, but I can’t see the medical officer of health coming in and saying, “If you’re not prepared to undertake this tomorrow, you can’t sell any more ice cream.” This is what is happening.

The other thing that came to my attention just a few days ago is that if community centres don’t install these devices that spray insecticide over a food counter, then they can’t get a liquor licence under any circumstances. It’s not good enough to have the device off in a corner with the flies circulating around the room; you’ve got to have it directed right over the food counter. If it comes to the question of whether I’ll eat the odd fly, or whether I’ll eat the odd touch of insecticide, I’ll take the fly.

This is just an example of what is really, in my view, an insane application of the law. I think that’s the only way to put it. There’s no common sense used. If it isn’t in the book, if it isn’t in the regulations, that’s too bad. It doesn’t matter about the common sense of the situation, and this is what I object to. And this is what is happening, not only in our area, but right across the province.

I think that the point made by the member for Parkdale in this instance is absolutely correct. I think the local boards of health should have more power to indicate what they feel are the priorities with respect to what the medical officers of health and their staffs should be doing. As it is now, it doesn’t work that way.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant to take that back to the minister and to discuss it with his people; because I think it’s a problem and I think it’s going to get worse.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I note in the bill that we seem to be preserving the resident ratepayer qualification. Perhaps I’ve missed something, having been out of the political scene for a time, but one of the problems which we had in the city of Toronto, for example, was to find council members who qualified as resident ratepayers. I can’t find any change in the Act to include tenants for instance. It seems to me that if a person is entitled to serve on a council, then he should be entitled to serve on a local board of health without having to further qualify under the residential ratepayer qualification. I don’t know whether there has been a change, but I can’t find it.

I may say that on one occasion we had great difficulty because one member who was appointed to the local board of health lived just outside the municipality and qualified for city council by holding property in the city. I am not sure that I think that’s to the advantage of the city, but that’s besides the point in this debate. It seems to me that anyone who can qualify to sit on council ought to have an equal right to be appointed to the local board of health of that municipality. I would just ask if we could have clarification of that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make on the bill. I am interested in seeing that the matters of the appointment of inspectors and their protection are being attended to. I think this is most worthwhile, because inspectors who are entering into premises in good faith should be protected from liability which would otherwise result. It is clear, of course, that liability on the Crown remains if it is shown that these matters are not being done in good faith, and I think we strike a fairly good balance on this matter with the legislation.

I was interested in the comments by the member for Ottawa East with respect to the situation concerning the inspectors for local boards of health. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would give us the benefit of the background of the situation there, so that the situation for local inspectors is clarified as well as for provincial inspectors.

The one question which I have deals with the matter in section 5, which states that the medical officer of health no longer is required to make a sanitary inspection of all schools in the municipality annually and to make a report to the ministry. I would think it would be a very strong requirement that we ensured that these schools were being properly inspected, especially where many hundreds of children and young people could, as a result of communicable diseases, develop some serious health problems that might hit a good portion of the community.

I presume this item is being removed because the inspection is being done by someone else or the reports perhaps are being made through the Ministry of Education. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can just resolve this matter for me and so that the House can be assured that this kind of inspection, which seems to be most intelligent, is continuing.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to offer some comments relative to the points raised by the hon. members.

The member for Ottawa East raised some points --

Mr. Roy: The member had better get used to the name. He’ll hear it a lot more.

Mr. Walker: I thought it was disappearing.

Mr. Roy: No way!

Mr. Walker: Give me a badge. I’ll wear a badge.

He raised certain points in respect of the number of inspectors in eastern Ontario and some questions relating particularly to the medical officer of health and the peculiar circumstances that relate to the Ottawa situation. I take it that the member is not in total agreement with what the MOH does. By the amendments being made in section 4, the MOH will drop off the board as an equal board member with all the other board members and, in fact, will revert to the employee status, which I think is beneficial.

This answers some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Parkdale relative to the conflict, not of interest, but of the conflict between the board and the MOH in the lead situation. Those two situations will no doubt be resolved now by a rather superior body exercising influence over its employees, in this case, the MOH. That should redress any type of wrong there. The fact that the status of the MOH has changed to something of an employee rather than an equal board member will, I think, correct the problem and solve issues that have been raised by both members. I think it would be incorrect for me to comment on individual actions of the MOH in Ottawa, for surely he’s their employee. If they’re upset with what he’s doing, they have the proper redress available to them.

The hon. member for Ottawa East raised questions relative to the appeal procedure. He was quite satisfied with the appeal procedure for inspectors appointed by the minister on the provincial level, but he raised it relative to the local inspectors operating under the board of health. Per- haps the member will turn to page 6 of Bill 101, section 87(2), found under section 11 of the bill. Reverting back, first of all, to where it reads 87(1) on page 5 under section 11, it refers to:

“The medical officer of health of a municipality or any inspector or other person in the employ of the local board acting under his instructions ... ”

If the hon. member will just jump from there over to page 6, he will see that as it continues on, it says:

“An order closing premises under subsection 1,

“(a) shall be in writing and shall include written reasons for the order; and

“(b) may be directed to the owner .... ”

So, in fact, I feel the complaint is satisfied with that particular section.

As to why there should or should not be immunity for local inspectors, the feeling is that the local inspector is an employee of a local board. I feel the province would not want to give an immunity to a person who is responsible to anyone other than the Crown. In this case, the person would be responsible to the local board and would not be responsible to us. We think we can control the immunity questions in that sense, where we have a person responsible to us. But where the local inspector is responsible to some other body, that would be extending the immunity provision beyond what we would think would be appropriate.

Mr. Roy: Can I just speak to that point the parliamentary assistant made there? Does he propose then to enact in this legislation the power, through regulations, to give the power to local boards to have immunity for their inspectors?

Mr. Walker: I think probably not. The reason is the local board does not have a responsibility in the same sense that the province has a responsibility. We have retained our liability, of course, as the member has seen by the ongoing sections --

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Walker: -- which is a proper counterfoil to the immunity we give to our inspectors. But for a local board there is no liability, other than through the bodies which appoint the local board members. There’s no direct responsibility to the public. It’s through a tangential way or a transferred responsibility. There is no liability on the part of the board in the same fashion as the liability the Crown retains in this case.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on the same point here?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Dukszta: Can the parliamentary assistant give me an answer on the questions I asked in terms of the board? Would he be prepared to consider extending immunity, almost in a blanket fashion, to the boards themselves? The point I’m making is that many people who’ve been appointed to it are afraid to take an action. It paralyses them.

Mr. Walker: You are asking for an extension of the immunity that the province now has that comes about by direct responsibility to the people. A board of health wouldn’t have a direct responsibility to the people in the sense that elected people in the province would have.

I think, however, the area is worth reviewing. I am prepared to say that it will be given another look as to whether or not some immunity provisions could be extended. However, I tend to think as well that there is quite a feeling that there shouldn’t be an immunity provision for the individual local inspectors who relate directly to the local boards. But I am prepared to see that the matter is again reviewed. This Act comes up for amendment once every year as it is, so there is ample opportunity to review it and bring in further amendments if it appears to be warranted.

Mr. Dukszta: Just one more question on a very similar point. One of the objections I raised was in respect to the changed relationship between the medical officer of health and the local boards, because the medical officer will become more of an employee. Is the parliamentary assistant suggesting that this is happening in the city of Toronto? I looked very quickly through your bill, and it doesn’t seem to bear that intent.

Mr. Walker: It seems to me it covers Toronto, does it not, by saying “in a city having a population of 100,000 or over”? This is section 4(3).

Mr. Dukszta: Excuse me, but are they not still being appointed by the government? Or are they going to be appointed by the local board or the municipality?

Mr. Walker: I’m sorry. Is the member talking about the appointment of the MOH?

Mr. Dukszta: Yes. And the responsibilities thereupon.

Mr. Walker: Well, I am sorry. I haven’t embraced that. But I will attempt to get the answer before we get out of committee.

If I may just complete my remarks. The hon. member for St. George has raised the question about the resident ratepayer qualifications, and I would tend to agree with her thoughts that a tenant would not be eligible for engaging on a particular board. There is no definition of resident ratepayer found, of course, in the interpretation section of this particular Act. I presume we take the simple generic definition of the word. I think that is something we should take a look at as well, and see what the ramifications are.

Of course, resident ratepayers cover a very broad area of people, so there are lots of eligibles for the board. I am wondering if we are creating some ineligibles in people who are obviously not resident ratepayers. I wonder if the tenant falls in that, and I think he does. It might certainly warrant changing the situation. I can again undertake that we will look at this point and see if it is possible to make some alterations.

I don’t think the fact that a person has to be a resident ratepayer is any real reason for preventing him from being on or ensuring that he is on. I think that tenants could make a very good contribution.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, just on that point. It does seem to me that is so, but it is particularly important if a person is elected to a council and as a council member, for example, is ineligible to sit on the local board, although he can sit on the council. It doesn’t make too much sense. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant could consider that.

Mr. Walker: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for London North completed his remarks?

Mr. Walker: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I had raised the point with respect to the inspection of schools, and wondered if that was being done elsewise. Perhaps we could hear on that point?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry I have overlooked that, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this has now become a redundancy. Of course, it was a very integral part of the health scene back when it was first introduced. I think it is very aged and probably goes back to 1902, if I am correct, and at times like that some of the schools were in less than healthy condition. They were often operated on a small base and certainly on a small financial base.

Today with the larger school units and with the larger facilities available, there have been no annual inspections going on for years. The public health inspector knows he doesn’t have to go into the school and check it. This hasn’t occurred, and we are satisfied there are proper safeguards within the Ministry of Education regulations and by the fact that a board of education itself is supervising the operations of the schools. So this type of inspection becomes a redundancy.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

PLANNING ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: I do have some concerns about this bill. I would like first to congratulate the minister for bringing forward those sections which pertain to demolition control. He gave his commitment to do this and I, for one, welcome the fact that it has been introduced. I have, however, some concern about the provisions which I would just like to go over, if I may.

First of all, I have never really believed that this kind of legislation ought to be within a planning Act, but rather than we would see amendments to the Planning Act which could set guidelines for development or for planning and the control which a city ought to have. However, since it is here, one of the problems I see is that it appears to me to be creating ambiguity between the standards of maintenance and occupancy and the health and safety standards.

This bill seems to provide that health and safety standards shall continue. However, as I understand it, and I’m sure it’s still true, in a city, for example, like the city of Toronto, which initiated this particular policy for consideration by the government, when the maintenance and occupancy standards came into effect, I believe they revoked the health and safety standards. It would seem to me that there should be clarification of this in the bill itself.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt just for a minute. I have amendments to the bill which will clarify that particular feature. Rather than have the hon. member think there isn’t an amendment, I wish to say I do have four amendments. Certainly we didn’t want to have any doubt as to health and safety and the fact that maintenance and occupancy standards pertain to certain areas, if designated by bylaw and so on.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I won’t labour the point. I’ll just look at the amendments as they come.

There is one other feature. The city of Toronto again -- and I’m belabouring this, I realize -- has had a standard for non-residential properties. It seems sad to me, Mr. Speaker, that this would be confined to residential properties, although, of course, a greater pressure for the preservation of housing and of planning for such housing is in that area.

However, with the new technologies which have been developed, particularly in the field of architecture and engineering, there have been magnificent changes all over the world I think, except in this area, whereby some of the old non-residential buildings have been beautifully converted. I can well understand the concerns of a city such as Toronto in trying to ensure that these very good old buildings should not be demolished, particularly as there have been cutbacks in the planning area of zoning for commercial and industrial uses.

I would like some comment on that particular point. The city itself has some additional objections which I will put forward, if I may, but without indicating necessarily that I am in accord with their concerns.

They are concerned with the definition in subsection 6(1) of the bill, which defines residential property as a building “used or intended for use for the purpose of human habitation.” They ask the question, whether this would include vacant properties. I would have said that this obviously did. However, what they do ask is that if the building is vacant and there is a request for a demolition permit, does that then take it out of the definition that it is intended for use for the purpose of human habitation? Perhaps clarification of that point is all that is needed.

They do have concern that it’s almost mandatory that a demolition permit should follow a building permit. I put it forward. I must admit that I do not follow that point. It seems to me that if, in fact, a building permit has been given, then it would be somewhat strange if a demolition permit didn’t follow. However, I simply present it for the consideration of the minister.

There is one area which causes me concern, and that is subsection 8(1)(b), where we are once more dealing with the council of a metropolitan government. In view of the problems which were expressed in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto bill amendments, it seems to me that once and for all we should surely come to grips with the role of the local municipality in the planning field, and to understand just whether or not as a result of this bill the local municipality could have its rights further eroded.

I would have thought, from the discussions in the committee, that it would be repugnant to the government to give this demolition control power to the wider metropolitan area. The indication in that committee, as I recall it, was a fear that a city might blanket its areas for purposes of demolition control, albeit under this bill only for residential purposes of demolition control, albeit under this bill only for residential purposes. But it would seem to me that if there were a concern for a city with about 700,000 people, there would be a much greater concern for a metropolitan area of more than two million. I put this forward for at least some consideration by the minister in his reply.

Of course, this refers also to section 6 of the bill, where “municipality” is referred to. There is a question as to whether this section refers to the municipality enforcing the maintenance and occupancy bylaws or whether it could refer to a metropolitan or regional government.

I believe I have covered those situations which seem to me to be matters which should engage the minister in discussion at least so that we may have clarification of the meaning and the purport of this bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say again that I do welcome the introduction of some form of demolition control, but I trust that there will be amendments brought forward to the Planning Act to provide a much more creative and imaginative tool and planning approach than is indicated in what I think we would all concur to be a limited sort of planning tool. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to say several things about the bill. I would start out by saying that while we welcome the fact that the government has at least embraced the principle of demolition control after some pretty severe resistance by this minister and by the government in general over the last year and a half, we will have a number of things to say, in the form of amendments at the committee stage, showing that we disagree with the way in which the government has put it forward. I’ll make some of those points during the course of the second reading debate, but I do have to say that it is a relief that the government has at least begun to move in this particular area.

Let me deal with the other sections of the bill before I get into the question of demolition control, which is the major part of the bill. First, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would say a few words about what has happened to the overall comprehensive review of the Planning Act, which has been so long overdue and so long awaited in the province.

A year and a half ago, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and myself, along with others, were on the select committee on the Ontario Municipal Board, a committee, which I may say acted expeditiously in bringing down its recommendations and which, alas, has been sadly frustrated by the refusal of the government to consider what was there recommended and to act thereon.

That committee recommended that the Planning Act needed a thorough review. We found out that half or more of our deliberations about the OMB really bore on the planning process --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): About 90 per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: About 90 percent; I guess my friend is right.

We called either for our committee to continue to work to study the Planning Act or for the province to do something. The province said: “No, we don’t want you guys poking into what we’ve done. You have been far too radical about the OMB. We don’t like to rock the boat. We’ll have our own review.” We are still waiting for the appointment of a study director on that particular proposal. The Treasurer (Mr. White) said a few words about this the other day, but there is still no action.

The Ontario Economic Council has come up with a first-class review of the Planning Act and the planning process in the province, which is a very sound basis for a review of the Planning Act. But still there is no action.

I think it’s fair to ask, during the debate on this particular bill, that the minister spell out the government’s intentions and to say that the government should get moving on that. We are working with a Planning Act that is almost 30 years old and is badly in need of overhaul and repair.

Mr. Haggerty: I believe the minister was a member of that committee.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Many years ago.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if I could go on, I would like to refer to the sections relating to the neighbourhood improvement scheme which the federal government has launched and which the province is now entering into with this particular Act. The amendments to section 24 allow the funding and agreements for the purpose of selecting areas for redevelopment, for studies and so on. This partly gets at the questions which I hope will be raised in a more general way about the planning process in the province.

I can give a specific example from my own city of Ottawa of the way in which the purposes or one of the purposes of the neighbourhood improvement programme, the federal programme, is being thwarted by the municipality with the co-operation and the sanction, presumably, of both its provincial and federal partners. One of the aims of the neighbourhood improvement programme was not only that we would move to rehabilitation rather than bulldozer-type renewal of older neighbourhoods but also that the people in the area would have a chance to participate in a very real way in what to be done for that particular area. In a very real way, they would be involved.

This meant the government didn’t come up with a cut-and-dried programme to say, “We are going to replace the sewer in this street; do the sidewalks here; do some parkland there; and renovate these particular houses.” It decided the areas which were most in need of rehabilitation and left it up to the people to decide how they felt the funds could be best spent in order to revitalize the neighbourhood.

There is no insistence on that in the amendment we have before us today, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid if the province goes along with the kind of thing that’s happening in Ottawa, and possibly other parts of the province as well, we could find those federal funds are grossly misspent. They are inadequate to begin with and, in the second place, the way they are being directed in Ottawa is a shoddy abuse of public funds.

In our area, Mr. Speaker, the city now is considering a recommendation, and apparently is prepared to accept it, under which $2 1/4 million of neighbourhood improvement money would be spent in an area in the far west end of the city called Bell Town, adjoining Britannia Park. It’s an area of 268 houses, I think. It is intended to spend most of this NIP money on municipal housekeeping, on sewers, sidewalks and things like that; $300,000 of that will be spent on improvements to Britannia Park which is the largest park controlled by the corporation of the city of Ottawa.

This is all out on the fringes, on the city limits of Ottawa, in a neighbourhood which, because of its location, its proximity to parkland, its proximity to the Ottawa River and so on, was already in the course of self-renovation, of self-renewal. I am afraid also of a change in income group as higher-income people displace people on lower incomes.

If I can recall the figures, only $1,200,000 was devoted to renewal in the rest of the city, or rehabilitation in the rest of the city. Those $1.2 million were directed to areas known as the north and south sectors of centretown west, in my particular riding of Ottawa Centre. There wasn’t a nickel devoted to areas in need of rehabilitation in the riding of the member for Ottawa East. He has been victim of or subject to a major urban renewal programme in lower town west but in lower town east there certainly was a very strong case for rehabilitation under the NIP programme.

That was overlooked by the city planners, and the area of Dalhousie ward in my riding which, if anything, is in far greater need than centretown west, was equally ignored by the planners. The reason they gave, Mr. Speaker, the city and the staff, was that there had not been the proper studies in these areas in order to qualify for neighbourhood improvement. They wound up devoting a million and a bit to an area of a couple of thousand houses, but they could devote $2 1/4 million to an area well on the way to renovation on its own and close to all sorts of amenities which are lacking in the downtown area.

One gets the perverse result that areas which don’t happen to have studies completed, don’t get any neighbourhood improvement funds in order to let people decide what should be done, and areas well on the way to renovation get the money when clearly they could do it either through normal municipal budgets or on their own. That’s perverse and yet that’s permitted under these particular sections and I wish the minister would respond to this.

I think the whole question of participation in the neighbourhood improvement schemes -- I am glad to see the Minister of Housing is here as well -- I should have been thought through much more carefully. I think the provincial government should reinforce any efforts being made by the federal government to ensure that rehabilitation is carried out in conjunction and co-operation with people of the areas affected, and not in an arbitrary kind of fashion.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): It is planned by the MLC. What more does the member want?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, that’s fine, but the MLC doesn’t represent the people in my riding. The MLC has the mayor of Ottawa on it. He is elected by the people of all of Ottawa, but if he says something it doesn’t mean that he has consulted with all of the people in the area. If I say something it doesn’t mean that I have consulted with all of the people in the area. The intention of the neighbourhood improvement programme was that there would be consultation and co-operation, in the studies and the decisions of what would be done, with the people of the areas affected, and not just through their elected representatives, and certainly not just through the planning staffs of CMHC, of the province or of the municipality. I think that we -- “we” meaning the municipality of Ottawa -- have got the wrong end of the stick, but I think the provincial government should point that out and should insist that local people be involved.

The minister may say, does that mean the local people are going to dictate every nickel? The answer is no, they are going to have to do it in consultation or conjunction. They may have to learn, for example, that it is inevitable, to have any kind of rehabilitation, that they spend $600,000 on sewers that are outdated and have to be revived before you can do anything above ground, and the money gets sunk in the ground rather than being put where people see it. That’s the kind of thing people will have to face when the layman comes into co-operation and consultation with the experts.

But none of this interchange of ideas and interplay of ideas is provided for in this legislation, in these amendments to the Planning Act, and I think that it should have been.

The other sections, Mr. Speaker, providing for delegation of subdivision control and other powers to the municipalities, providing for part approval of official plans and so on, are routine, and I can turn to the question of demolition control.

It is interesting that the bill is being put forward by the minister who said, just over a year ago, that the city of Toronto’s proposals for demolition control were an intrusion on the rights of private property. I suspect that this minister doesn’t believe in the legislation he is putting forward. However, obviously we are debating the bill and not what his own rather constrained and antiquated ideology may lead him to believe. It may be that he has been converted by the arguments.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be offended by it. He is embarrassed enough about presenting this.

Mr. Cassidy: The city had asked for a somewhat different set of procedures. It wanted to have the power to declare demolition control in areas for a period of six months and then to extend the demolition control. I think it is a positive improvement that areas of demolition control will be without time limit in cases where a city wants them.

On the other hand, the city wanted all properties to be covered, and it is clearly a retrograde step for the province to decide to go forward only in cases where residential property is involved. It is retrograde because there are many properties which are purely commercial, which may be mingled in with residential property, and where you may get blockbusting and commercial properties within an area that is mainly residential. It is retrograde because cities like Ottawa and Toronto are now seeking to replan their commercial and industrial areas and they should not have their hands tied by the inability to use demolition control powers where those are appropriate, and the inability to declare demolition control in areas where that would be appropriate. They shouldn’t be tied by the fact that they can’t extend it to commercial properties.

It is inappropriate because this is going to lead to litigation and to litigious sorts of devices where, because there is a caretaker’s apartment in the basement of some commercial building downtown, or because Viola MacMillan’s penthouse is still on the top floor of a building she built 15 years ago in downtown Toronto, the city declares it is a residential property and therefore seeks to apply demolition control in that kind of arbitrary fashion. That’s wrong.

The Act is wrong because, as the member for St. George pointed out, it may allow a developer who wishes to demolish a building that was used for residential purposes to say that it is no longer intended for residential purposes, and, being empty now, to then evade the effect of the Act.

If he is going to get into this, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to the minister, he should go the whole route. He can review the application of the Act after a year or two and if he feels that any municipalities are going hog wild in the way in which they are using it, or that they are abusing the very considerable powers they are given in the Act, then by all means bring in amendments.

We are used to seeing amendments to almost every piece of legislation on the statutes almost every year around here. Where it is something important we are willing to look at an amendment if it doesn’t work out, but the way this is put forward now, Mr. Speaker, it does tie the hands of the municipality by restricting demolition control to residential property, while at the same time it makes the application of the law much more workable by not imposing the six-month time limit.

I am concerned with the fact that the grounds for refusal of a demolition permit are not spelled out. It seems to me there ought to have been guidelines put into the Act, as was suggested at one time by the city of Toronto, during the first or second appearance of this particular bill before the private bills committee.

I am concerned because right now I think there are several arguments. The minister would argue probably stronger than I that lacking any grounds spelled out in the Act, a municipality could refuse a demolition permit in the control zone on a whim. I do not think that municipalities act that way; but there is a possibility that they could have arbitrary interference with people’s property rights.

The second thing, though, is that it seems to me that it is necessary or desirable for a municipality to spell out the ground rules, or to have the ground rules spelled out in legislation. It may be that it would be a better route to save the municipality if the ground rules for granting or refusing demolition permits were set out as a statement of policy when a demolition control area is set out. The people then know what game they are playing.

The third thing is, as the minister is probably aware, I am rather sceptical and many people outside of the House have grown increasingly sceptical, too, about the Ontario Municipal Board. The power of appeal to the OMB, which is not objectionable in itself, becomes objectionable because of the powers that have been given to the OMB to apply its own standards to something which should be properly a matter for municipal decision.

If the municipality had a policy and then refused a demolition permit and the OMB were then asked to judge whether or not the refusal of the demolition permit was justified in relation to the policy of the guidelines set by the municipality, that would be okay. Or if there is a set of guidelines laid down in the legislation which would govern the OMB when it considered any appeal against the refusal to grant a demolition permit, that would be okay.

But right now we are leaving it right up in the air. The OMB could decide, if it’s a panel that happens to believe in the sacred rights of private property, that it won’t refuse anybody’s application for a demolition permit. And if one or two members of the OMB on the panel were sensitive as to what is happening or going on in our municipalities, then in another decision it might come up with a completely opposite decision and might be even tougher on a developer than the municipality would have been.

That is an arbitrary and kind of unpredictable power that has been given to the OMB because of the lack of guidelines. I would prefer guidelines that to a certain extent limited the use of demolition control powers by a municipality, but at least let everybody know what game was being played. I would prefer those to be in the Act than to leave it to the whims and fancies of the Ontario Municipal Board.

I think points made by Mayor Crombie and by the member for St. George about the automatic power to get a demolition permit if you are going to rebuild, ought to be considered very carefully by this House and by the minister. The clear intention of that was that you shouldn’t be able to come in the back door and stop the developer from building by imposing a demolition control area after he has applied for a building permit. That is fair enough.

I suppose it is equally fair to say that if the guy applies for a demolition permit in an area that is not a demolition controlled zone, then the present rights to get that demolition permit ought to apply. That’s the way the game is played. Municipalities are free to declare every square inch of their territory a demolition control zone if they wish. The constraint of doing that is the bureaucratic restraint, the problems of administration more than anything else -- so that can be avoided.

But to say, on the other hand, that a person can avoid the requirement to justify his application for a demolition permit by promising to build something, may mean that the purpose or intention of a municipality in applying demolition control could be thwarted.

For example, we have the instance of an historic streetscape on Sherbourne St, just north of Dundas, I think it is. The houses are currently boarded up but are going to be redeveloped within the existing structures rather than being torn down to make room for another highrise, the way it is farther down the street in the city of Toronto.

In that particular case, the application for a building permit made by the developer would have thwarted municipal efforts to preserve part of the heritage of old Toronto; and efforts by the municipality, may I say, to preserve it in a way which was economic and didn’t grossly take away from the profitability of that particular site of land.

It seems to me that either the right to the building permit and the right to demolition should apply only before the application of the demolition control zone, or a municipality should have the power to delay a building permit for a period, say, up to six months or something like that -- maybe a year -- in a demolition control zone in order that it may seek alternatives to the demolition.

The minister has an amendment which I understand, will levy a penalty of up to $20,000 per dwelling unit demolished if a developer, for example, used this particular section to blockbust. That’s a pretty tough penalty and I accept that’s going to restrict somebody from taking out a building permit without the intention of ever using it. Nevertheless, some power of delay or something else needs to be written into the Act in order to meet the kind of objections which have been put forward by the mayor of Toronto.

I have some questions about some of the exemptions and powers to exempt that are put into the Act and I think those can be properly raised in committee. Maybe I can come back to the point about limiting this to residential properties only and say to the minister, “You resisted this; now you’ve accepted it. The government either has acceded to Mayor Crombie because he’s a nominal Tory and will campaign for Chad Bark” --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Here we go again, the member is talking out of the woodpile.

Mr. Cassidy: One sometimes thinks that Mayor Crombie could do a lot better in protecting the interests of the city by threatening to turn in his party card because, as often as not, this province lines up with the metropolitan federation --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): That’s a lot of garbage. The member is dreaming that up.

Mr. Cassidy: Not at all.

Mr. G. Nixon: Turn in his card? He hasn’t got one.

Mr. Cassidy: He hasn’t got one? He’s been out campaigning for Chad Bark in this particular campaign. Nevertheless, the mayor is doing a good job for the city of Toronto. It’s just a pity he’s got those affiliations or seems still to have those affiliations.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The mayor likes him.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Even the very best of mayors have a blind spot now and then.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, that’s right. Given the fact he’s out campaigning for the government surely the least the government can do is ensure that this applies to all kinds of property and not just to residential property.

There are something like 140 acres of land in downtown Toronto which are currently vacant and used for parking lots. There were formerly 138 acres; it’s probably 140 by now at the rate they’re going. They are currently being used for parking lots but structures formerly stood on them.

I know the city can restrict the zoning in order to prevent parking lots as a permitted use but that’s a very backdoor kind of approach. There is so much office building under construction in downtown Toronto or in downtown Ottawa right now that the work population planned for in these areas over the next 20 years is almost already achieved. In other words, the commercial boom in these areas far exceeds the projections of even the most optimistic of planners. There is no need to continue to demolish buildings in order to make room for new office buildings. That need doesn’t exist.

The question about other uses needs to be very carefully looked at. In order to retain any kind of human scale in these older city areas, it seems to me it is important to try to retain some of these older commercial buildings and to recycle them rather than to let the wreckers move in, the developers move in, the parking lot operators move in at the rate they’ve been moving.

We need a pause in these cities. If cities want to use the powers of demolition control in order to get some kind of a pause, it seems to me that that isn’t a bad way of doing it; and the minister ought to look at that very carefully, rather than simply limiting this to blockbusting in residential areas.

We can have blockbusting in commercial areas as well. We haven’t called it that way, but I think we should probably call a spade a spade. There are historic streets, like Front St and King St in Toronto, which have suffered that kind of blockbusting and are now irretrievable. The history that my kids and the minister’s kids might have grown up to find is being put before the wrecker’s hammer, day after day and week after week.

An hon. member: That’s for sure.

Mr. Cassidy: Now, while we support the bill on second reading and while, perhaps with one hand, we applaud the fact that the government has been converted to accept the need for the principle of demolition control, we will argue very strongly in the committee stage that demolition control be extended to cover all classes of property and not only be limited to residential property.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The subject of demolition control has been well covered by other speakers, but I would like to speak to the principle involved in section 4 of the bill, which to my mind makes the passage of this amendment a red-letter day in the Province of Ontario in that I presume, if my interpretation is correct, that the mess in Century City, and in Uxbridge and Pickering townships, can at last be cleaned up.

I’d like to relate a little history of what has gone on all these years. Back in 1968, for those members who are not familiar with this, land was assembled farm by farm in these two townships between the first and the fourth concessions of Uxbridge township. Down payments of about 20 per cent were made to the farmers and five-year mortgages were taken back. The properties did change hands.

I had been told by the farmers when I visited them there a few years ago, trying to help them in some manner, that the people assembling the land had in their confidence cabinet ministers of the time who said that the assembly would be welcomed as a development. As I remember it, they wanted originally to set the thing up as an improved district to be free of the authorities of the surrounding municipalities. This was denied by the province.

When the development did not go ahead, the mortgages suddenly started to become in default and the farmers were not getting paid. Many farmers suffered severe hardship in that they couldn’t get payments on their mortgages, and some had sold their farms, moved to town and bought other properties. The whole thing was a real hardship to the 40 or 50 farmers who were involved.

It’s unfortunate that the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond) and the member for Ontario South (Mr. W. Newman) are not in the House today because, with all due respect, they were involved in this; I dragged them into debate on this subject a few years ago in this House. We tried very desperately to do something, but we found that the government failed to act at that time to find a way in which this problem could be resolved.

The problem, of course, lay with section 29 of the Planning Act, in that legal opinion was of the nature that if a farmer tried to foreclose one individual mortgage, he would find that the mortgage in effect was invalid because of section 29 of the Planning Act. These mortgages were on farm properties that were side by side, and the Act strictly states that one cannot convey or mortgage property where the same owner owns adjoining properties and the whole thing must be considered as one large property for any transfer or mortgaging purposes.

This situation went on and on, and the farmers found themselves in a great deal of difficulty. Legal opinion was obtained, and the farmers in the area spent $40,000 on legal fees in trying to get the matter cleared up. Close to $4 million in mortgages were involved and Revenue Properties, the holder of the mortgages, was sitting there claiming that the original mortgages were invalid; and people who had taken on second and third mortgages felt that their mortgages would move up one step.

Now we find, Mr. Speaker, that a little amendment of seven lines in this Act is supposed to clear up this whole situation. I sincerely hope it does, and I think this should be read to the House. It says:

“Nothing in subsections 2 and 4 prohibits, and sections 2 and 4 shall be deemed never to have prohibited, the giving back of a mortgage or charge by a purchaser of land to the vendor of the land as part or all of the consideration for the conveyance of the land, provided that the mortgage or charge is applied to all the land described in the conveyance.”

Mr. Speaker, I hope this, not only in Century City’s case but in other areas across the province, will make the original mortgages valid. The township of Uxbridge, a year or more ago when I assembled this information, had $150,000 owing in back taxes on those lands.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: I would like to finish in the next 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, if I may have your indulgence, by simply saying I am certainly glad to see this amendment. I’m glad I caught the significance of it when I was reading through the bill. I just don’t understand why this couldn’t have been done a couple of years ago.

Mr. Breithaupt moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

It being 12:30 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.