Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, today at the appropriate time I will be presenting to the House for first reading a bill that will provide the basis for municipal elections in Ontario.

This bill replaces Bill 49, respecting municipal elections, which will not be called for further reading. We came to the conclusion, following the very useful exchange of views after Bill 49 was circulated, that the best approach was to prepare a completely new bill. This bill embodies the further recommendations of the joint election committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario for amendments to municipal election procedures, as well as the recommendations of more than 200 municipalities responding to Bill 49 over the summer and into the fall.

Many changes and new proposals have been incorporated in the new bill. The most significant is the change in the municipal election date to the second Monday in November, with a December 1 commencement date for municipal councils. With the assistance of the joint election committee, we have been able to adapt the election process to the earlier date without any deleterious effect on essential procedures. At this time we believe this change is the earliest possible within the constraints posed by these procedures.

Two innovations in the bill include an amendment to dispose of the use of a poll book at municipal elections -- a less time-consuming process has been devised which will be particularly beneficial where vote recorders or voting machines are used; secondly, the requirement that the preliminary lists be posted in each polling subdivision has been replaced by the provision that at least two copies of the complete preliminary list will be posted in conspicuous public places in the municipality.

A further amendment I would like to mention deals with handicapped electors. The legislation has been amended to permit any handicapped elector to have a friend assist him in voting. Also, the language of these sections has been modernized.

Several other changes are procedural adjustments designed to complement the change in the election date. The remaining changes depart from proposals in Bill 49 and return to the existing provisions of the Municipal Elections Act. The latter reflect strong municipal opinion favouring some of the existing procedures regarding such matters as the polling hours, advance polls and recount procedures.

I am confident that the bill now before the Legislature represents, to the greatest possible extent, a consensus on appropriate and workable municipal election procedures.

In closing, I would only like to reiterate my earlier comment to the Legislature when introducing Bill 49, that it is important that this legislation be considered and finalized this fall to allow sufficient time for all those affected by the Act to become familiar with its provisions prior to the 1978 elections.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of each year, income tax discounters open for business in major Ontario centres. In makeshift store-front offices they offer consumers an instant cash rebate for the purchase of income tax and similar refunds.

For providing this service, these operators charge heavily -- often up to 50 per cent of the face value of the refund. For example, if a taxpayer receives 60 cents on the dollar from the discounter this would be in effect an interest rate of 800 per cent per annum, assuming the refund from National Revenue is issued in a month.

Five other provinces have enacted legislation to force this type of operation out of business, or to reduce excessive profits by limiting the amount of the discount. Because they find it difficult to survive in other provinces, these operators are moving into Ontario where there is currently no legislation.

The federal government’s proposed Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act would have included tax discounting as a lending transaction and would have limited the amount of the discount. However, at this time it seems unlikely that this Act will come into effect in time to protect those who, because of urgent financial need, become prey to this form of exploitation.

Therefore, because this government sees the necessity for an immediate and effective solution to this recurring problem, I will introduce, later today, the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977. This Act will limit the amount of the discount to five per cent. In other words, the discounter must pay to the taxpayer at least 95 per cent of the anticipated refund. If the refund is greater than the amount calculated on the return, the excess must go to the taxpayer.

In keeping with my desire to provide consumer redress wherever possible, the Act will authorize provincial court judges to order restitution when tax discounters are convicted. For the purposes of enforcement, the order may be registered with the appropriate court. In addition, fines of up to $5,000 may be levied on convicted parties. We had considered the alternative of registering and licensing these discounters. However, this route creates another expensive level of bureaucracy. More important, the mere registration of such operations would not provide any direct consumer protection or means of redress.

I hope that all the members of the House will share my concerns in this matter --

Mr. Lewis: Your concerns? It is the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison) who fought this battle; he fought this battle.

Hon. Ms. Grossman: -- and will appreciate the urgency required. I look forward to their co-operation. We would like to have our legislation in place for the upcoming tax season.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the provincial Treasurer in regard to some positions he has taken, notably in his speech of October 25 to a joint meeting of the engineering and managerial organizations operating in Ontario.

Can the Treasurer explain why it is he seems to feel that freer trade is absolutely inevitable as a result of the negotiations to take place in Geneva, and why he feels that Ontario’s only response to this has to be basically to stop what he calls our wishful thinking and simply get ready to accept it? Why does he feel that it is so inevitable? Does he not recognize the very serious deleterious effect this could have on employment, particularly on the manufacturing sector in this province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t say this in any way critically, but I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition, if he would take the time to ask, would find any responsible political or business leader, or perhaps even labour leader in this country, who does not feel that the Geneva talks will lead to a lower level of tariffs world-wide.

I think that has been inevitable since the great success of the Kennedy round some 15 years ago, and I think it has been apparent for the last year or two years that there is a determination on the part of our principal trading partner, the United States, and our second and third trading partners, the European Economic Community and Japan, to see some lowering of tariffs, particularly in the industrialized world.

President Carter moved very decisively after his election a year ago to appoint Mr. Strauss, a very leading figure both on the American political scene and within his party, who had been engaged previously in the GATT negotiations. I think it is generally accepted that he was given a strong mandate to push ahead.

I would be glad to debate that point with the member but, as I say, I think there are few responsible people who do not feel that GATT will produce lower barriers.

What is completely uncertain, I suppose, is how good a deal or otherwise our negotiators at Geneva will secure. Obviously, we have to have continued access, to the United States in particular, and to the European Economic Community, for some of the things which we export and on which our success as a country has been built. It will be important for us to hold onto those advantages if they’re there, and if possible improve those advantages. There are a number of areas where we would like to see lower tariffs on Canadian-processed or Canadian-manufactured goods going into the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan.

If we are to achieve that, then I think our negotiators would tell us that we are going to have to give to get, if I can put it that way. I think it is inevitable there will be reductions on tariffs of some things coming into this country. On the surface at least, if not deeper, this is going to make life more difficult for present Canadian manufacturers operating in domestic markets or attempting to replace imports, or for that matter attempting to export.

Frankly, I think that to look at it any other way is to be putting one’s head in the sand; and that’s not something which I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition even on a Tuesday afternoon.

What we have been attempting to say and to point out is that the recent devaluation of the Canadian dollar to the tune of 12 or 13 per cent has given Canadian exporters and Canadian import replacers a competitive advantage in the short and medium run which is probably greater than the tariff cuts most of them can expect on certain lines.

I think it’s very important that Canadian national policy and provincial policy work to maximize the advantage which has been obtained in devaluation. I think it’s terribly important that governments commit themselves to freeing up capital and human resources to our manufacturing industries particularly. I think it’s terribly important that we create the climate in this province and in this country in which those manufacturers and processors can operate with some certainty and some degree of knowledge of certainty for the future.

I think it is important that we continue, in this province at least, and in the country, to maintain a balanced and equitable tax structure which is competitive, and which in our view is as good if not better than that of our major competition in New York, Michigan, Ohio and neighbouring states in particular. By capitalizing on our advantages and not simply going about saying “Freer tariffs are not inevitable,” and putting one’s head in the sand, we have great opportunities.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary. Since the Treasurer did accept in the earlier part of his lengthy statement that the negotiators on behalf of Canada might exert some influence on the ultimate results from Geneva, and since Canada’s chief negotiator is rather well identified as a man who favours freer trade, would the Treasurer not consider, on behalf of Ontario, publicly raising our voice -- both as the Legislature of Ontario and as the government of Ontario -- to encourage the Canadian government to take more of a protectionist stand at Geneva than its negotiator might be inclined to do?

Mr. Lewis: I can’t keep up with this. It’s too much.

Mr. S. Smith: Shouldn’t we go on record in this regard, given the fact that we stand to lose so many jobs at a very difficult time in our history?

Mr. Lewis: Grit protectionist and Tory free-trader. What’s the world coming to? I can’t cope. Help!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence to suggest that the ultimate advantages of freer trade to Ontario and to Canada will not be beneficial both in terms of jobs and in terms of a better standard of living. Where we have moved -- and we have seen that since the original GATT negotiations -- we have achieved some success. Certainly my colleague will be pointing out to Ottawa areas of potential weakness, areas where tariff reductions should not perhaps be considered, areas where tariff reductions may be possible if they are phased, areas which will require transitional assistance from the senior governments; and that is the very business that we are all about. It is the business which my colleague and myself and others are very much engaged in; and indeed which the Canadian Manufacturer’s Association, among others, have engaged in, I would think, for two or three years, making those very points to Ottawa. Ottawa is in the process of attempting to sort those out, I assume, before they give their final instructions to their negotiators at Geneva when they get down to the serious business, probably next January.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; In view of the fact that neither the Treasurer nor the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) have given any clear indication of which industries Ontario would wish to see favoured in the tariff cuts and which industries it wants to see thrown to the wolves, will Ontario have a representative or an observer with the negotiating team in Geneva in order to communicate this non-policy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we have not been so asked by Ottawa. We can only make our best input, which we will continue to do, and be available for consultation with Ottawa as the negotiations proceed. However, I think the decisions will be made relatively quickly. I would only point out to the hon. member that I can’t think of anything dumber than for me to stand in my place, or for the Minister of Industry and Tourism to stand in his place, and say this is an industry which you should protect and this is the one that you shouldn’t protect. You just don’t negotiate those sorts of things in public. I can’t really imagine a dumber suggestion than that which I have just heard from the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: How about having a policy?

Mr. Peterson: I’ll see if I can go one better.

An hon. member: You will, Dave; you will.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Treasurer is seen in all of the speeches that he is making lately as the champion of free trade, and in view of the considerable amount of correspondence both he and I have had from small independent manufacturers who --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One letter.

An hon. member: Is that all you got?

Mr. Peterson: -- see him as their enemy, would he not agree that he is part of the crisis of confidence in the investment community and in the small manufacturing sector in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: David, I didn’t think you would, but you did.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker I suppose, there was a day when as a young man, I would like to have been characterized as a proponent of free trade. I don’t think even my critics at this moment, other than the member who has just put his foot in it again, would describe me as a proponent of free trade. A proponent of freer trade, yes -- and one who is doing his best to say that we can’t just sit back and put our head in the sand and think that the world is going to look after us. That may be the policy of the Liberal Party, but it is not our policy.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a supplementary: Given that Mr. William Berry, a director of the Canadian Textile Institute, totally disagrees with the policy the Treasurer has, and suggests that 200,000 Canadian jobs would be lost in the textile industry alone as a result of his proposal -- a good number of those in the province of Ontario -- can he tell us what job programs he has to replace the people who are going to be thrown out of work by the type of program he is proposing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen those views, and at first blush I would not agree with them. The Minister of Industry and Tourism has, along with his colleagues from Quebec, been successful in negotiating a quota system for textiles. I think that does give us an opportunity in that area. I was interested to see this morning a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Premier, with copies to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and myself -- from another Canadian industry not unrelated to textiles -- saying: “We are six pretty strong manufacturers of a certain item; we’ve come together in effect to form a consortium, to rationalize. We think we can meet the competition. We don’t know that we can meet all the competition from the Third World, but we can certainly meet the competition from the EEC, from the developed world, from the United States. We recognize that it’s inevitable, we may need some help; will you give us a hand?”

That’s the kind of attitude I want to see out there, and that’s the kind of attitude we are seeing out there. Canadian people can compete in world markets and they’ll do a darn good job of it. But they won’t do it with the carping that’s coming from over there.

Mr. Sweeney: Given the fact that slightly in excess of 50 per cent of all the manufacturing in Canada is done in this province, would the Treasurer not agree that Ontario has a greater stake in these negotiations than any other single province in Canada? Would that not give him a legitimate position to go to the federal government and say that Ontario particularly wants to have a voice in these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve been making representations. Of course what the members don’t understand over there is that when we make a point of view, we make it public; we release our papers, we make speeches public and we tell the people what we’re up to. If I just kept my mouth shut there’d never be a question on this subject because the members opposite haven’t got the brains to figure it all out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This isn’t an orderly way to carry on the question period. Does the member for Armourdale have a supplementary?

Mr. McCaffrey: It’s a new question.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s enough supplementaries from that side on this subject.

CANSAVE FUNDS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware that money for lunches for the Indian children on Whitedog and Grassy Narrows reserves is being supplied by Cansave on the same basis which it funds Third World countries? Does the Premier not agree that things have reached a pretty sorry state in Ontario’s treatment of native peoples when an organization like Cansave, which is mostly devoted to the Third World, finds it necessary to fund lunches for Indian children at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of this --

An hon. member: The province of opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’d be quite prepared to look into it for the hon. member and have some information for him just as soon as I get it.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is there not in the Premier’s cabinet a chairman of all the matters dealing with Indians -- I believe the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle)? Might the Premier not at some point consult with him to find out why in this province today it’s necessary to have lunches funded by an organization supposedly designed to take care of the Third World and underdeveloped nations? Isn’t it about time Ontario took its responsibility in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member didn’t understand my answer so I will repeat it, I will be quite prepared to get all the information I can for him on this subject. I won’t bother to remind him that it is a federal reserve, as I understand it.

Mr. S. Smith: This government was ready with the freezers and with the other gimmicks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that’s true. We try to solve as many problems as we can. Sometimes we solve problems that really aren’t ours; we make an effort to do so.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right, this one is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before the hon. member’s blood pressure rises to too high a level, perhaps he would be polite enough to accept the fact that I don’t know, but I am quite prepared to look into it and come back with information for him.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD HEARING

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address the first question I have to the Minister of Community and Social Services: Why did a senior legal counsel of his ministry, Mr. Dillon, accompanied by the director of his rehabilitation branch, Mr. Crichton, this morning attempt to prevent the attendance -- at a hearing of the Social Assistance Review Board on a child with a learning disability -- of my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), when the minister knows that members of the Legislature have regularly sat in on such hearings and participated, and when he knows that it forced the chairman of the hearing to overrule both the director of the branch and the legal counsel of the ministry? What is afoot in that ministry now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully familiar with that situation, although before coming into the House it was briefly brought to my attention. It is my understanding that the board of review, as a matter of policy, has in the case of witnesses only -- not members of the Legislature who are not there as witnesses -- but in the case of witnesses has made a practice, as is done often in the courts and elsewhere where a series of witnesses is to be heard, of excluding those witnesses who have not been heard until such time as they are heard, after which they may remain for the balance of the proceedings.

I’m more familiar with it in the courts than in this particular forum, but the reason for that is generally understood -- and I think the hon. member opposite would agree -- to be that there are circumstances in which that is a desirable policy to follow. Certainly there is no policy which would preclude the attendance of members of the Legislature in any capacity at such a hearing -- as an advocate, for example, or in any other capacity -- except perhaps in the situation where they had indicated they are in attendance as a witness, which I understand was the situation this morning.

The legislation, I am advised, provides that the board does have the authority, at its discretion, to establish such a policy when hearing a series of witnesses.

I’m not sure whether that was the hon. member’s understanding, but that was my understanding at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary -- my colleague may wish to come in -- surely the minister realizes that the questions of whether or not even expert witnesses are excluded is one that is open to many interpretations before that board, because some of us have sat through hearings where witnesses remained throughout? Surely it is a new precedent for this ministry to move legal counsel into a situation, admittedly highly charged, to exclude a member of the Legislature whose constituent is involved from attendance at and eventual modest observation on the case being heard? Can he suggest to the director of the rehab branch and the legal counsel that this is unacceptable in the future?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that legal counsel for the ministry was sought only on the point of advice as to whether, in fact, the legislation read as it was thought that it did.

Mr. Lewis: No, they fought it unpleasantly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wasn’t present, so I don’t know whether there were unpleasant tones or not. I’m not sure that the hon. member putting the question was present either to know whether that was the case, hut certainly it is my understanding at this point, and subject to further investigations by myself, that what was presented to the board this morning was a matter of a practice that has been followed previously by the board in the case of witnesses, not necessarily members of the Legislature --

Mr. Lewis: Not all the time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and if there has been any departure from the usual practice and policy I will investigate the matter further. I can assure the hon. member that there is certainly no intention to preclude members of the Legislature from attending at such hearings, and in fact, as he knows, they often do -- perhaps not always, though, in the capacity of a witness, which I understand was the case this morning.

Mr. Warner: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know that the distinctions which he drew in an earlier answer were distinctions that were drawn to the attention of his director, Mr. Crichton, who still insisted that it was not my responsibility as a member of this assembly to attend a matter involving a constituent of mine?

Secondly, does the minister not think that whether a member of this assembly is attending as either a witness to a particular portion or an observer on behalf of a constituent, the member of this assembly has a responsibility to that constituent, and those responsibilities should not be interfered with by the Crown?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would never suggest that a member of the Legislature should not be entitled to be present at such hearings. I’m not sure of the distinction that the hon. member is referring to. If it is the distinction between a member attending in the capacity of an advocate, or as an observer, or in support of a constituent, that is one thing --

Mr. Lewis: It doesn’t really matter.

Mr. Warner: It doesn’t matter.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- but surely if there is any validity to the principle of excluding witnesses --

Mr. Lewis: We’re not experts in this House on such matters.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- nor do members always attend as witnesses. I understand the distinction that was made this morning was between witnesses, and in this particular instance a member of the Legislature who appeared and indicated that he was there as a witness.

Mr. S. Smith: Why exclude witnesses from this sort of thing anyway? It is not a trial.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Surely if a constituent asks a member of this Legislature to attend such a hearing with him, the constituent makes that determination and the ministry shouldn’t try to infringe on that request by the constituent?

Mr. Lewis: Exactly. They were fighting it this morning. The ministry was fighting it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker. I would concur with what the member for Sudbury East says, but I also think that in many instances the constituent would appear perhaps with a number of persons who were there at the request of the constituent or someone who was representing the constituent. Surely the hon. member would understand, though, that it may be the opinion of the board -- and it would be open, presumably, to a party to make this proposal to the board -- that to provide for a fair hearing of the evidence, it would be desirable to have the witnesses excluded until their evidence was heard.

I would reiterate, in this particular case it was my understanding that the member of the Legislature who was present had indicated that he was present in the capacity of a witness. It was only on that basis that the issue arose, as far as I’m aware.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary. The hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot. The questioning seems to be circuitous. We’re not getting anywhere.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister’s second answer. I’ve been present at these hearings and I’ve never seen ministry officials bring in a lawyer; and given the fact that the children involved have clearly been defined by the Supreme Court in this matter, why are they bringing lawyers into these hearings?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I said earlier, it was my understanding -- and I have indicated that I have not had an opportunity to investigate this matter fully -- it was my understanding at the time legal counsel was consulted that it related to a question of the content of the legislation and the authority the board had with respect to making a determination with regard to the exclusion of witnesses. It was on that point and that point only that legal advice was sought.

Mr. McClellan: It was your director who wanted a lawyer, not the board.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, since we appear to be reaching a new low, virtually, in dealing with these very difficult cases, where we now have legal battles before the review board over the attendance of members, is it not possible for her to rationalize the views of her ministers within the secretariat and get us a statement on what will be done with children in this field to avoid this kind of confrontation which emerged this morning?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sure the hon. member is fully aware of the great difficulty in coming to a policy decision on children with learning disabilities.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not what you said last spring.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There have been so many differing viewpoints from very well educated people in that particular field, it has been very difficult to come to some kind of consensus on what is best in the interests of these children with these very difficult learning disabilities.

I think we have reached the point where we are about to make an announcement very shortly. I hope when the announcement is made that the hon. member will realize that it has taken a great deal of time and involvement with many groups of people who are interested in this particular subject and that we will have his understanding that it is impossible to please everyone.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of supplementary, if that announcement is truly coming very shortly, can we suspend the almost inevitable weekly confrontations which are now taking place before that board until the ministry makes the announcement, if we can assume it is, say within the next week or 10 days? Can the minister give that undertaking?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am not prepared to give that undertaking at the moment but I will discuss it with the ministers who are involved.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I would say to the minister, so that there be no misunderstanding, we don’t want the hearings suspended in any way, but only that the concept that has been expressed by her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, that there is this legalistic approach to the hearing of witnesses imposed on a kind of hearing which should be as far away from that approach as possible, that this be avoided, since everybody there is concerned for the welfare of the young person whose education is at stake.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is what I intended to discuss with my colleagues.

Mr. MacDonald: Get rid of the bureaucratic, legalistic approach.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary: Since the minister promised us a program for the learning disabled in place by September in her estimates last spring, and since the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) promised a policy statement in September, may I ask her is the policy statement ready and when precisely is it going to be available?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have already indicated that there have been a tremendous number of problems involved in coming together on a statement that we thought would meet the needs of children with learning disabilities. That statement will be available soon. I am not prepared to state, definitely, the date.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister not aware of the fact that at the present time the only branch within the entire government that looks after children with serious learning disabilities is the rehabilitation branch and that it is already incredibly complex for parents to get through there? Surely the last thing we want is to make it even more complicated by bringing in legal counsel? Does the minister not realize that?

PRAXIS INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On November 1 the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) asked me questions about an investigation regarding Praxis Corporation and specifically about the terms of reference related to this investigation.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of this year I received a letter from the federal Solicitor General, Francis Fox, passing on to my office information he had received from one Frank Oberle, the Member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River. The letter stated Mr. Oberle had told Mr. Fox that a number of persons whose names were listed in the letter “could have information” relating to the matter. I want to stress that no allegations were being made by either Mr. Oberle or Mr. Fox. The letter was merely passing on information.

The same day I received this letter, I forwarded it to the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission asking for an investigation into the matter “in so far as it may affect any members of any police force in Ontario.” I asked for a report “as soon as possible.”

Shortly thereafter, following consultation involving the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission and senior officials in my ministry, it was decided that there should be an investigation by the Ontario Police Commission pursuant to section 56 of the Police Act, and in addition there should be a full police investigation by senior criminal investigators to determine whether there were any breaches of the Criminal Code to be prosecuted.

As the members of this House are well aware, the Criminal Code includes the indictable offences of break, enter and theft, or break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, and also includes the offence of unlawful possession of property knowing the same to have been obtained by the commission of an indictable offence.

Two senior and highly qualified criminal investigators from the special services division of the Ontario Provincial Police were appointed by the Ontario Provincial Police at my request and they have been working in conjunction with an investigator from the Ontario Police Commission. The three investigators have also had the opportunity, during the course of their work, to consult with a senior Crown prosecutor in my ministry and they will be reviewing their findings with him when their work is completed.

Upon conclusion of this investigation and receipt of the report, I will be able to advise the members of this House further.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: I wonder if the Attorney General would co-operate with the solicitors for Praxis, who have often requested the name of the person from whom the Metropolitan Toronto police received the stolen documents? All they have to do is provide the name of the RCMP officer from whom they received the stolen documents. They have requested that often and until now their efforts have been thwarted.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, my responsibility in this matter is to determine whether or not there was any breach of the Criminal Code by any police officers in this province, or indeed by anyone else. In so far as assisting the solicitors for Praxis, as far as I am concerned this comes well outside my ambit of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The estimates of the Attorney General are before the House at the present time. I will allow one more supplementary.

Mr. Stong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a private citizen can lay a complaint and ultimately a criminal charge, will the Attorney General not co-operate with the private citizen in this respect in his investigation, since the Metropolitan police will not lay a charge based on the fact that the documents were stolen and known to be stolen?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t anything further to add to my previous answer.

ASSESSMENT DATA

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) regarding the release of assessment data to the municipalities.

General assessment information, as he may know, is available to each taxing jurisdiction in the province. In the case of market value assessment information, assessment data were released to the municipalities commencing in August 1976 by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. Earlier, my ministry had supplied magnetic tapes, which included the pertinent assessment data, to the Treasury officials for their analysis. Treasury then assembled and released the data by property class, including both the old and new valuations.

I think it made sense that Treasury release this data in the reformed version, since it best suited the needs of the municipalities and since that ministry had resources available to assist municipalities in their analysis.

[2:45]

I wish to say at this time that the region of Waterloo and its constituent municipalities and certain school boards received this data on September 1, 1976. It is my understanding that the data were released to each municipality in this province by property class in order that the municipalities and school boards could properly measure the impact of the tax reform proposals upon their tax bases while preparing submissions to the Blair commission.

I must point out that it was necessary to supply each municipality with not only its own data but also with the data of each of the municipalities with which it shared costs for particular programs, such as schools, regional governments, counties, et cetera. For instance, each municipality in Simcoe county received its own data plus the data for the 35 other participating municipalities.

While each municipality received a massive amount of data, I believe it was appropriate to provide the necessary information for a complete and meaningful analysis of the new tax base and the reform proposals. Further, each municipality received the appropriate technical advice to enable it to use the data to its best advantage.

Mr. Epp: I have a supplementary question for the minister. I want to thank her for the answer, but to be honest, I don’t think she has answered my question. In view of the fact that the ministry has this information available on a block-by-block basis, in view of the fact that the city of Toronto had to send a person down to the ministry to copy it out, which they felt was significant information for them, and in view of the fact that not every municipality can send representatives from all over the province to Toronto to copy it out by hand, would the ministry make this information available to the municipalities -- all 835 of them -- in the very near future?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: We have responded to requests for special information from various municipalities and boards of education as they have come through.

Mr. Cassidy: No, you haven’t. You have delayed consistently.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: In the case of the city of Toronto -- and I am aware of this request -- the city of Toronto asked to have made available to it the information which was made available to the Blair commission during its studies. That information is now over a year old and quite frankly I think it is obsolete.

I think also the member doesn’t appreciate the very difficult proposal he makes, inasmuch as these computer printouts are very big, very bulky and cumbersome, and if you haven’t got a computer with which to run through and refine the information, it is just a hopeless morass of detail.

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister advise if she has received the $2 million in tax from Ronto yet?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister agree that the information which she has supplied to municipalities or which has been supplied by TEIGA is largely meaningless when the government hasn’t decided at what percentage of market value it is going to assess, and hasn’t told the municipalities how it will affect the grants that they receive?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: It’s a fact that when we released the information a year ago, we did provide the technical advice to the municipalities to help them to interpret that information. To take simply a computer printout of block-by-block information, yes, I agree there is very little value in that.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is he aware that a large and growing number of secondary schools in Ontario do not offer French in grade 13 and a substantial number no longer offer it in grade 12, and that the number of English-speaking students taking French in grade 13 has dropped by 40 per cent since 1971? If he is aware of this, and I trust that he is, what steps are being taken to reverse this very serious trend?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we are of course encouraging schools to encourage students to take French. It is not our intention to make French a mandatory subject in the secondary schools of this province.

I think that only the vocational schools, basically, in this province are not offering French -- that’s the special vocational schools; every other secondary school has French available, except a few. There are schools, of course, that do not offer it in grade 13. We are currently in discussion with the universities as a result of the Interface study and the universities’ intention, perhaps at some time in the near future, to make French a mandatory requirement for admission. If that comes about, that will have a special effect on what happens in the secondary schools.

In order that meaningful programs can be available, all of us have to feel that the thrust we must take is to encourage young people to take it, but forcing them to take it is not going to help the situation at all. I think where we have to put our emphasis is in the elementary schools, encourage more immersion programs in school jurisdictions across this province and encourage more meaningful French programs in all the elementary schools. As I think I pointed out on one occasion in the past, there are very few elementary schools in this province that don’t have some type of French program.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister agree that the real figure of concern is the rate of decrease in French-language instruction to students in all grades, particularly the 40 per cent decrease in grade 13? If he has such a commitment, which I’m sure we all share, to offer instruction to people at the elementary level, why doesn’t the school that we as a Legislature provide for our pages teach French? I asked them on the way in and they’re not given French here. Why not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to discuss that with you, Mr. Speaker, and the committee of the Legislature that has authority over things that happen in this building.

Mr. Lewis: You have had the authority for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I understand it’s a special committee, made up of all parties, that has input as to what goes on in this Legislature. I’m sure that that committee could pass its advice on to the Speaker. Certainly they’d have my full support if the Speaker wishes to ask the teacher here to introduce French. I think the member should ask the pages also.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister recall the recommendations made by Mr. Gillin in his excellent report that was tabled here, I believe two years ago? Would he not consider those the basis of a program whereby we could reverse the very sad trend in the schools of this province, which means that the French language is heading in the same direction as the teaching of Latin and, far from being jammed down anybody’s throats, which is often the complaint we get, is soon going to disappear from the school system, which I think would be unfortunate, except for the immersion courses that the minister is talking about at the elementary level?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend is off on the wrong track. We have in fact put into place the program that Mr. Gillin suggested.

Mr. Nixon: The whole program is not in place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The French program is in place. The only difference is that it’s up to the school boards to take up the program. We’ve put in a program for teaching French as a second language with financial incentives to do the same, based upon the principle that Gillin suggested. Indeed he helped develop the program that we introduced here in this House not so very long ago. That program is now being picked up by many school boards across this province. I think my friend will find that, given another year and an opportunity to develop a little more fully with a little more time, many elementary school programs of the nature that Gillin suggested will be in place and that this will occur.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Following the concerns of my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, in view of the fact that the voluntary incentive approach doesn’t seem to be working, especially at the secondary level, why is the minister reluctant and opposed to the idea of making it a mandatory subject in Ontario schools?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thought I’d answered that. The point of making French a mandatory subject at the present time would not serve any particularly useful purpose. The point is that French should be available. I would be very concerned if a school was not offering French, that is, if one of the regular secondary schools was not offering French. I believe the quality of the program will increase, and the chance of the student getting a more meaningful experience from that program will occur, if that student chooses to take the program, rather than by forcing all students in secondary schools, who now represent about 80 per cent of the young people in the secondary-school age bucket, regardless of their desire, to take that language at the present time.

Mr. Samis: You make them take math.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. McCaffrey: A question to the Treasurer: Earlier today the national unemployment figures for the month of October were released and I believe they showed 8.3 per cent unemployed. In view of the fact this now represents, I think, five consecutive months in which the national unemployment figures have been at, or in excess of, eight per cent, does the Treasurer have any comment to make?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why didn’t the members opposite ask that question?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We haven’t got the breakdown but there are some rather interesting figures.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you table them?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In terms of actual unemployment in Ontario, which fell from 6.5 per cent to six per cent from September to October, it is rather interesting that since October of a year ago, year over year, employment has risen by some 137,000. From January, the beginning of the year, until now, employment has risen on an actual basis by some 233,000. On a seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment in Ontario has fallen from September to October from 7.3 per cent to 6.8 per cent. Year over year, employment has grown --

Mr. MacDonald: This is a setup.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- by 134,000, and since the beginning of the year employment has grown by 111,000, which means that the Bramalea charter has been met.

Mr. MacDonald: Speak on the budget debate.

An hon. member: It’s a ministerial statement. It’s loaded.

Mr. Speaker: Would you like a 10-minute recess?

FRENCH-LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can he inform the House, in view of the commitment he just made on the teaching of French, why it is that the ministry, after careful deliberation, is not prepared to make French obligatory in French-speaking high schools in the province, except on the condition that those pupils take four obligatory credits more than are required of English-speaking pupils?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under discussion with the Franco-Ontarian trustees’ and teachers’ associations. I might just ask my friend a rhetorical question: Is he prepared to vote for rescinding that section of the Education Act which says that French shall be taken for each of the four years in the secondary program in the French-language secondary schools and that English shall be taken? That is now part of the Act; and it is the law of this province.

I draw his attention to this fact. No other mandatory subject in secondary school is enshrined in the Education Act, but the teaching of anglais as a course in French-language secondary schools is part of the Education Act of this province. It would require an Act of this Legislature to take that particular requirement away from those schools. I suggest that would not be the proper thing to do at this point in time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to say we should give equal treatment to French-speaking pupils as well as English-speaking pupils and, therefore, that requirement of the Act should be changed. I think it is wrong for the minister to say that. My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister is, in fact, misleading the House because it is not correct --

Mr. Speaker: That is not parliamentary language. Just withdraw it.

Mr. Cassidy: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct that the choice given in consultations with French-speaking associations is either to retain the status quo, in which case French would not be an obligatory course in French-speaking high schools, or add four additional credits by making both French and English obligatory, which is not the case in the English-speaking high schools?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that’s one of the options, and I indicated to my friend exactly why that option has been placed forward. I don’t feel at this point in time that I would want to come into the House with an amendment to the Education Act to take out that section making anglais a mandatory course in French-language schools.

I’ve offered to make français, or French, a mandatory subject if they so desire on that basis. That isn’t acceptable at the present time, although some students in the schools have told me it would be quite adequate because, in fact, while taking anglais, as required under the Act, 96 to 98 per cent of the students are also taking français. We’d be quite happy to make it a mandatory subject if they wish. But I cannot see removing anglais as a required subject in French-language schools at this point.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Is the Ministry of Energy still carrying on with the liaison program, much publicized by his predecessor, in which the Ministry of Energy advises other ministries on the best ways to accomplish conservation and efficiency-raising measures?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Reed: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us why the senior citizen home in Aylmer, which is partially solar heated, is being supplemented with demand electric heat which is the worst possible use of this high-grade energy form?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, is the member asking me or telling me? I would suggest that one requires a backup system in any solar system for space heating today. It may be the member’s view that electricity is not the most economic, but people may have differences of opinion.

Mr. Reed: Is the kind of liaison which would recommend the use of demand electric heat in projects of this nature indicative of the quality of information and recommendations that are going to these ministries?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think the hon. member should look into this a little further. One has to have a heating system or some backup type of heat if one expects to heat the premises with solar heating alone. Our technology in this country doesn’t attain the point where we can be solely dependent on solar heating for space heating. It’s a question of what type of backup system is most economic or most efficient in terms of cost and energy. If the member looks very closely at what has gone into that building, I think he’ll conclude, as have the architects and engineers of that building, that the best system has been employed.

OHC LAND SALES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Would he give the House a report on how much money his ministry has made through land speculation so far this year?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that’s absolutely impossible. We’re not speculating in land.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister care to tell us how much money his ministry has taken in through the sale or disposal -- or whatever term he would care to use -- of property that he acquired for residential purposes some time ago and is now divesting himself of? How much money has he made?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be pleased to get that information and make it available to the hon. member.

KOMOKA PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Van Horne: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Can the minister tell this House what moral commitment he or his ministry had to the owners of a 65-acre site in the proposed Komoka Provincial Park?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been to no specific site. There were a number of statements made in terms of the acquisition of land for Komoka Park in three phases. The ministry, without question, had stated it wished to buy the land in that area and I’m sure that people have guided themselves accordingly. Within the last few weeks we have taken action to live up to our commitment on one particular piece. I’m told there currently is no other piece of land upon which a firm commitment has been made. I have promised that before too long I would be stating whether I wanted to go ahead with Komoka Park as originally planned or not.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In the light of the conflicting dollar amounts reportedly having been spent, would the minister give this House a complete accounting of the moneys that have been spent on this proposed park site?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That I’d be pleased to do, Mr. Speaker. The latest acquisition is going to the Land Compensation Board, so all I could state is the amount of money we paid on closing, not the total amount that may be levied after an assessment of the properties made by the board.

MAPLE PARK SITE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I understand a petition was presented on October 26 to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Maple Ratepayers’ Association and an organization called A Sane Approach to Vaughan’s Environment, asking for an environmental assessment of the proposal by a private company called Family Leisure Centres to locate a mammoth amusement park --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t hear a question.

Ms. Bryden: -- at the intersection of Highway 400 and Major Mackenzie Drive. I would like to ask the Premier if, in view of the fact that this project will bring up to 10,000 extra cars into the area, will use up prime agricultural land and so on --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: And 9,000 jobs.

Some hon. members: Question. Question.

Ms. Bryden: -- and will likely require the outlay of taxpayers’ money on widening Highway 401, will he tell us if he has replied to this petition, and if so, has he agreed to have an environmental assessment designation made for this project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the matter is before the Ontario Municipal Board. I get the impression from the hon. member that she, I guess, along with her party, is opposed to a concept of this nature. I find that interesting and I won’t pursue it any further --

Mr. Breaugh: We have been opposed to Mickey Mouse operations for some time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in light of the fact that we are seeking more tourist attractions, we’re looking for more jobs and more economic growth. I take it as the policy of the New Democratic Party that they’re not enthused about that sort of thing.

I can’t tell the hon. member whether there has been a specific reply to the petition. A petition to cabinet really only emerges in terms of an appeal, if there is an appeal, from the Ontario Municipal Board. I will check out and see whether there has been any specific reply, but I understand it is before the board.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier, does he not think the Environmental Assessment Act should apply to projects of this size, which may affect the quality of life of the whole province? It may be just that the location of Vaughan --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure I heard all of the question.

Mr. Swart: You will only give half an answer anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I will try to sense what the question was: Do you think a project of this kind is --

Mr. Speaker: The question was, should the Environmental Assessment Act apply.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if I can answer that as briefly as I can, I believe it’s a matter of zoning at this precise moment. The hon. member may find that from an environmental standpoint a leisure park such as Disney World or Disneyland is not in the best interests of the people of this province. But knowing some of her colleagues across the House who have attended both of those institutions, sometimes with their own families, I would think that she maybe should argue with them.

Mr. Lewis: I loved every minute of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly. Your leader loved every minute of it. In fact, I think he enjoyed it more than his children.

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Government Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry Administration Program ...... $ 4,277,500

Provision of Accommodation Program ...... 175,481,000

Upkeep of Accommodation Program ....... 60,673,000

Supply and Services Program ....... 45,546,000

Management and Information Services Program ....... 1,076,000

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Township of Dover;

County of Peterborough;

Village of Port McNicoll;

City of Sault Ste. Marie;

Certain lands in the township of Casgrain;

City of Ottawa;

City of Toronto;

Shore and Horwitz Construction Company Limited;

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SANDWICH, WINDSOR AND AMHERSTBURG RAILWAY ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 97, An Act respecting the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the bill is to change the name of the company that operates the public transportation in the city of Windsor from the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway to Transit Windsor.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 98, An Act to revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 99, An Act to regulate the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds.

Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved first reading of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for legal and technical assistance to certain citizen groups in the preparation of written submissions and participation in proceedings before the Environmental Assessment Board.

[3:15]

SUDBURY YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Germa moved first reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Sudbury Young Women’s Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the bill would grant permission to the municipality to allow exemption from municipal and school taxes for YWCA properties, even despite the fact that they do not hold title to that property, and in fact are in rented accommodation.

Mr. Speaker: I am reminded that it isn’t necessary to give an explanation of a private bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee of the whole on Bill 77, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Lawlor: Having to do with prime rates of interest as applicable to family law and family court problems, there is a notation supplied to us through the Attorney General’s background material to this particular legislation. On page 27 under Policy No. 13, they say:

“It would appear inappropriate to award pre-judgement interest in the provincial court family division. The type of money judgements made in this court are with respect to maintenance under The Deserted Wives and Children’s Maintenance Act. Similar principles would apply to the new support legislation.” It goes on in that particular vein.

What I want to ask of the Attorney General is where in this legislation, or is it somewhere in the family court legislation, that specific exclusion of the prime rate of interest, or any rate of interest for that matter is awarded with respect to pre-judgement interest, and generally, with respect to damages? Is there an explicit exclusion of the family court setup?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, there is not a specific exclusion, Mr. Chairman, and I would think that section 3(v) would not apply to family. First of all, it doesn’t apply to family courts unless specifically incorporated by the family court legislation, so no sections of the Judicature Act would require any specific exemption unless the Act were incorporated in its entirety.

I don’t have a copy of the family law reform legislation immediately at hand, but I don’t recall anything in that legislation that refers specifically to the Judicature Act. I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall anything. I am advised by my senior advisers that my recollection is correct.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, the Attorney General and his senior advisers are satisfied that the necessary exclusion to which he adverts in his notes has been made as this legislation passes through.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s correct.

Mr. Lawlor: I have to bow to far more Delphic oracles than I have at my immediate disposal.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: No. There are quite a number of things in section 3, if I may. We will go over special damages; a great deal could be said about them and the interest and how it is calculated in this particular area -- all contained in page 16 of the notes.

Let us jump down to subsection 5, where it says: “Interest under this section shall not be awarded” in a number of instances, all of which make very good sense; clause (d) has to do with “pecuniary loss arising after the date of the judgement and that is identified by a finding of the court.” Would the Attorney General care to decipher, a la Delphic oracle, the meaning of that particular clause?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am just trying to think of part of a judgement that would deal with pecuniary loss arising after the date of the judgement, inasmuch as that section says “identified by a finding of the court.” Perhaps again the oracles that are available will be able to assist me as to a judgement where that would have some specific practical application. I am having a little difficulty in thinking of where a judgement would refer to and identify a pecuniary loss that would arise after the date of the judgement.

Mr. Lawlor: Does it mean pain and suffering or loss of economic expectation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It could apply to future loss of wages. For example, some judgements break down -- and, of course, there is a large degree of discretion as to how a judgement is broken down. One trial judge may give an award for general damages which may include pain and suffering, future loss of wages, future medical expenses, et cetera, just as a lump sum. Certainly for many years the practice, as I recall and as the member for Lakeshore may recall too, was to lump under general damages anything to deal with pain and suffering or future pecuniary loss.

In recent years it has been my experience that trial judges in damages actions will specify a certain figure as representing an estimate of future loss of earnings; and interest would not run on such an award. I think that would be the most common example of where such interest would not accrue on an award that is broken down and which includes a lump sum for estimated future loss of earnings.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, what the Attorney General seems to be saying is, rather than a lump sum by way of an omnibus damage award, general and special, on which interest would then run, after this legislation comes into being counsel would certainly insist upon that second situation. It would become almost a rule of the court, I would take it, that the future economic loss would be designated and set forth as a separate item and would exclude interest. Would you think that would be the practice that would ensue?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. In a large damage award there might be a very substantial sum awarded for future nursing care or hospital care. The recommendation is that where that type of specific loss is identified in relation to a pecuniary loss, as opposed to general damages, interest not be awarded under this section.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one other comment and that’s all I have on this bill, section 5(f) does mention “where interest is payable by a right other than under this section.” It’s interesting for whoever consults the records of this House as to what was intended by that particular clause to mention that pre-judgement interest is now payable as of right in Ontario where it is provided by a contract or where a statute provides for the payment of interest, for instance, the Landlord and Tenant Act. Those are about the only two instances and these are specifically set out in the notes, where that particular section would become operative in the law.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 8(2) be amended by striking out clause (fa) and inserting in lieu thereof: “prescribing motions that need not be heard in open court.”

Mr. Lawlor: What is the difference, pray, between “in private” and “not in open court?”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Apparently the rules committee was unhappy with our wording and has suggested this amendment which is not, as the explanatory note states, a change in substance. The effect of it, as the member for Lakeshore knows, is generally to eliminate this rather annoying confusion that is often caused by worrying about whether or not you had to bring an application in chambers or in court.

What the rules committee wants to accomplish is all motions, say, in the Supreme Court, that are not heard or cannot be heard by the master, to be court motions. There are certain motions that the rules committee wants to designate as motions that need not be heard in open court. These rules have yet to be developed. One that comes to mind involves an application to declare somebody mentally incompetent, where it can be suggested that it is in the interest of the litigants not to require that the matter be heard in open court.

[3:30]

The motion would still be returnable as a court motion, generally speaking, but there would be a discretion on the trial judge to hear it not in open court or in private or in chambers. It’s really, to some extent, a question of semantics. It’s not a change in substance but is the effect of what the rules committee have recommended. I think that’s as much of an explanation as I can give at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: That is a commendable, rational and almost adequate explanation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDonald: Isn’t that overwhelming?

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive agreed to.

On sections 12 to 15:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that the bill be amended by renumbering sections 13, 14, and 15 as sections 14, 15 and 16, and by deleting section 12 and substituting therefor the following:

“12. The said Act is amended by adding thereto the following section: 1(14)(a): Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other Act or regulation all motions and applications shall be heard in open court except as provided by the rules.

“13. Section 123 of the said Act is amended by inserting after 82 in the fourth line, ‘1(4)(a).’”

Motion agreed to.

Sections 12 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 77, as amended, reported.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 81, An Act to amend the Small Claims Courts Act.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Lawlor: Up until now, we have been acting fairly informally and off the cuff with respect to referees. These are gentlemen who seek to act as a conciliation court with respect to claims and debts owing by people, particularly individuals who owe numerous creditors. The business of trying to stretch a tiny bit of money over a large number of debts hardly warrants, in many cases, sending these individuals to bankruptcy although there is a bankruptcy federal court, bankruptcy being a federal matter, down on University Avenue to assist impecunious people and people who are hung up on large indebtedness. But it would be a shame to utilize their services if the debts are really, even in aggregate, quite small and simply have to be spread out. So the formal recognition and conferring of powers upon a referee is an advancement.

This Small Claims Courts Act is quite a thick document and requires a fair degree of searching, overall, in depth. And this particular legislation doesn’t do it. But in this area, it’s a move in the right direction.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to indicate my appreciation to the hon. member for Lakeshore for his appreciation of this office. It has served very well the citizens of this community. I certainly agree with him that the citizens of other communities should be given the benefit of this office, for the reasons outlined by the member for Lakeshore.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Ms. Bryden: This section raises the monetary jurisdiction from $400 to $1,000, which is certainly long overdue. I cannot understand how the government took so long to bring in this amendment. We all know what inflation has done to economic matters, and this $400 has become completely unrealistic in the last four or five years. All sorts of people who had legitimate claims beyond the $400 were not able to get them adjudicated because of this limitation. I would like to ask the minister if he’s given any consideration to putting some sort of an escalation clause into this, so that this monetary jurisdiction would go up as the cost of living goes up and there would therefore be more justice provided under this Act.

I have a second question of the minister. In view of the raising of the monetary jurisdiction there probably will be a great many more cases coming into the court. Has he made sufficient plans to increase the number of judges who will be handling these cases? I understand that particularly in the Metro and York areas there is tremendous congestion in these courts -- even with the $400 limitation -- and people have to wait three and four months to have their case heard. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied, so I think this is something the minister should be looking at.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: So far as an escalation clause is concerned, it’s my view that any change should be by way of an amendment to the Act. I think because of the importance of this figure, and the importance to all of the citizens in this province who may be affected by the jurisdiction of the small claims court, anything to change its jurisdiction should be done in this Legislature. Certainly one of our problems is going to be -- and in this respect I recognize my own personal responsibility -- to ensure that all of the citizens of this province, to the best of my ability, have knowledge of the increase from $400 to $1,000 so they will benefit by it. I would think to change that jurisdiction by any course other than in this chamber would be unwise.

With respect to the numbers of judges that will be required, I agree with the hon. member that there will be additional judges required, certainly in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. We are entertaining applications at the present time for such appointments. In most other areas of the province it is felt that as the county court judges already handle the small claims matter, it may not have the same sort of impact. But I can assure the members opposite that this is something to watch very carefully. I agree that the issue of accessibility to the courts at a reasonable cost is a fundamental right that should be accorded all citizens.

Ms. Bryden: With regard to whether the change in the monetary jurisdiction should be brought to this House or be automatically escalated, I think we have to recognize that in these days of legislative logjams, it appears to take six or seven years to get any consideration of a bill of this sort. I don’t think, if the present inflation keeps on, that we can wait for six or seven years for another escalation if this $1,000 becomes unrealistic in the next year or two. I just wonder if in view of the fact that we escalate or index income tax, and we index civil service pensions, why the litigants in small claims court should not also benefit from such adjustments which would bring them more fairness and justice in their pursuit of their litigation.

Just one other small point regarding the costs to the litigants: I notice that just this fall the ministry, by regulation, has raised the fees. Small claims court, as we all know, is intended to be for the person with very limited means with small claims against other people. The raise is $1 per each level of the schedule and the schedule depends on the amount of the claim. So at the lowest level it amounts to a 50 per cent increase and at the higher level to an increase from $11 to $12. I wonder whether that is a legitimate way to raise fees and if the minister could explain why it was done in this way?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the first part of the member’s comments, I feel that it would be very much against the interest of the citizens of this province to change the jurisdiction of any court by means of some escalation clause. I can’t think of anything that would be less in the interests of people who wish to have access to this court.

In relation to the increase in the small claims fees, certainly it’s been our experience that the small claims clerks across the province have had very grave difficulty functioning under the present fee structure. As a matter of fact, some of them have got themselves into serious financial difficulty. These small claims clerks are citizens who are, of course, not lawyers. They’re for the most part what you would refer to as the ordinary person, little people from an economic standpoint who have had a great struggle to carry on under the present fee structure. I think the increase in the fees at the very least represents a minimal fairness to them. Certainly their economic return is very modest. I still think that the fee structure does provide access to the courts by the citizens of this province for a very modest and reasonable cost.

Mr. Sterling: My point is a fairly small one but perhaps it should be considered in any amendments to the Small Claims Courts Act in the future. Perhaps the Attorney General could entertain an amendment at this point to this particular section.

[3:45]

I believe that this Act should be written so that it would be understood by the general public and should not be written for lawyers alone. In this particular section there is one particular part, clause (b) to which I object; that is, an action of replevin is referred to in that clause.

In my legal experience, I have had the opportunity of bringing an action of replevin and, in consulting the other local members of the bar in the city of Ottawa, I found that many of them did not know what I was talking about when I consulted them about this particular type of action. I wonder if it would not be advisable to add after “any action of replevin” -- and I leave this entirely up to the Attorney General, because I have not spoken to him directly about this -- “or action to recover a chattel or goods” and then continue on where the value of the property distrained, taken or detained ... ”

The other thing I object to is that this section probably will be referred to by the public on many occasions because it outlines the jurisdiction of the court; I wonder whether or not the public refer to bringing a lawsuit for an action and whether or not, in fact, that would create some kind of confusion also. I would suggest that the Attorney General also consider, where the bill refers to “any action,” especially in clause (a), putting in “any action or lawsuit” as an alternative interpretation of what “action” means to the general public.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The concern expressed by the hon. member is a very understandable and justifiable one, namely that this being the people’s court, we should make this legislation as understandable as possible.

What I’d like to do at this point in time, not just in relation to this section but to all sections, is give him my assurance that we are developing a handbook on the small claims court which will be published very shortly and in which we will attempt to assist the people who might have resort to this court to make it as understandable as possible, with full explanations of all this terminology. We would prefer to deal with it in that way for the present time, but certainly we would be quite happy to take into consideration the advisability of actually changing the legislation.

I don’t agree with what has been said earlier, that this legislation cannot be changed in an expeditious fashion, in a matter of days, if it’s the consensus of the majority of the members of this chamber. I’m obliged to have the member’s views; they certainly will be reflected in the handbook that we are preparing and we will certainly consider them seriously with respect to any further amendments.

Mr. Lawlor: That was the most energy-laden piece of effrontery. “In days” did he say? I don’t think I have to say any more. Just try to get some legislation through this House, even in several years now. I won’t even refer to the particular legislation of which I’m thinking.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Lawlor: It’s interesting that this has to do with that practice by major marketing organizations -- companies like the T. Eaton Company et cetera -- who write into their contracts in excess of $100 a clause saying that the place of payment will be the place at which action may be commenced. If they’re selling goods elsewhere than in Toronto, nevertheless they invariably put in the contract that Toronto will be the place of trial.

One can see the enormous inconvenience. Many people, even if they had a legitimate defence, would throw in the towel at that particular point because of the inconvenience and expense of having to come to Toronto to have the case heard, whereas the goods were delivered and the contract was really consummated elsewhere. That section has existed in this law for well over 50 years now. It is one of the features, one of those not just pinpricks but quite irritating things -- we will come to another in a few minutes -- that have existed in this archaic legislation for an awful long time, largely arrogated to the benefit of large commercial enterprises. After 50 years the consumer and the purchaser, I trust, are going to get a bit of a break.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Lawlor: Anyone who is acquainted with the courts at all is cognizant of the enormous panoply and intricacy of rules of evidence, of how hearsay rules operate and of the diversity of strictures as to what may be admitted and what is not admissible. It is a study and a lore all by itself, a lore which lawyers peculiarly preen themselves upon. A lot of the rules are irrational, their applications are arbitrary and they come down by way of an historical body.

The lawyer will tell you they all have their justification in the bosom of Abraham, but Abraham has been dead for a little while and even Sarah followed him.

With this in mind, in this particular, again at the people’s court, one doesn’t want to be hamstrung by all these asinine rules. We will one of these days in the fullness of time have an evidence Act brought before us. It is being worked at in a very elaborate way with the Law Reform Commission of Canada and we have a Law Reform Commission report. It is being looked at, sniffed at, left in a corner and once in a while taken home in a briefcase, but it will come to pass; I don’t suppose it will help things a great deal. But this kind of thing does help things a great deal. It simply moves on into that whole area.

Just let me read the notes on it. “The rule that would become section 96(a) of the Act would be that any oral testimony, document or other thing, whether or not proven under oath, which is relevant to the issues being determined may be admitted by a judge. It is then for the judge to determine the weight to be given to the evidence. This is proving most useful in the determination of residential tenancy disputes under part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act as amended in 1975.”

There is no reason why people should be hung up under that particular kind of thing in that area. When they leave the courtroom and have not given certain evidence which they think is above the board and is perhaps crucial to their case, it leaves them with a bad taste in their mouth and even more than that. My basic feeling about rules of evidence is they ought by and large to be left to the discretion of judges who are competent to gauge the weight of testimony in these cases and in context to advise the jury as to what weight he thinks should be accorded to them.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Lawlor: The last part of 2(a) under section 12 says “but a judge may order.” It talks about the rate of interest under a writ of execution, that is, a writ arising out of a judgement issued out of the Supreme Court. It says: “but a judge may order that no interest is payable in respect of money owing under a consolidation order which is not in default.” A consolidation order is where a number of debts are brought together under a particular order and allocation made for those debts. In many cases, particularly in dealing with finance companies and their debts, and with the increase in the interest rate that’s going to take place under this legislation and under the Judicature Act, certainly before judgement they should come to issuance of the writ.

The poor devils can never get out of the slough of despond because the interest is so cumulative that regardless of whatever moneys they have at their disposal, the interest runs well ahead of them. The debt gets larger and larger and they pay and pay and pay. It’s what is ruining the country of India in terms of their money lenders. It has been very often the ruin of the poor in this province and country also.

It says here that when you get to the point of a consolidation order, as long as you are paying, the interest will not further accrue. That’s a great move forward and should be extended in principle.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Lawlor: If the Attorney General of this province has an extra member of ministry personnel -- I won’t recommend Larry McLaughlin, he’s too nice a fellow -- but somebody who didn’t have anything to do this afternoon, could he just run out to the front lawn of the building here and run up the flag far higher than half mast -- say, seven-eighths mast or something -- because this section deserves it and there should be some external sign of our internal condition?

It’s like a sacrament. Up until this time in history, one of the most iniquitous procedures embodied in that particular piece of legislation, which is nowhere else in the law, it is unheard of, is that you can go and garnishee a man’s salary or you can garnishee his bank account or you can seize any money that you happen to know the whereabouts of, even if it’s under the bed, without issuing a writ, without having made an adjudication of the legitimacy of the debt itself as to the merits of it, whether it is really owing, whether there’s a defence, whether it is only partially owing or what not. You get hit right between the eyes and do they ever take advantage of it.

The legislation being brought before us is saying, “That piece of iniquity is going to be knocked out. If you want your garnishments, you are going to get them after you have legitimized them, after you have proven that the money is really owing.”

Why the old legislation has existed so long I don’t know. Certainly the complaint has been raised a number of times in this House and very often comes into our constituency office. A man very often loses his job because of it.

I think I have said enough. If there were only this one section being passed this afternoon, the alleviation it would give to a lot of people out there would be very great indeed. This would make the whole thing worthwhile.

Section 16 agreed to.

Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Lawlor: We have been doing this in legislation over the past couple of years, this business of having affidavits signed in the same law firm. Now that we are passing the legislation, you question yourself as to why it was the other way.

I want to ask the Attorney General: Was it felt that in a firm of solicitors, somehow or other there was a laxity? If you had your partners swear your affidavit, you didn’t have to be quite so truthful? Was something like that operative? Why was there this ban against the swearing? You had to take the affidavit down the hall to the competitive firm, which you didn’t wish even to speak to, in order to have your affidavit sworn. But now this is being obviated.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s quite an interesting observation by the member for Lakeshore. It certainly was a bit of an aggravation at the best of times.

I suppose the reason for the law as it previously existed was the thought that the swearing of an affidavit was something that should be done by someone who was impartial, someone who had no association with the litigation, and, therefore, somebody outside the law firm. I think that fact -- plus the fact that an affidavit being sworn outside the office would, to a greater extent, bring home to the deponent the importance of the swearing of the affidavit -- justified the law to some extent as it existed until the present time. But I think we are finally recognizing in this legislation that people who administer oaths, so far as the taking of affidavits is concerned, really are officers of the court. Because they are within a particular law firm, doesn’t mean that carriage of this legislation should in any way affect their responsibility in this respect.

Section 19 agreed to.

Sections 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 81 reported.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 40, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following new section:

“2. Said Act is amended by adding thereto the following section: 47(1). In the event that the council of any municipality or a local board thereof is unable for a period of two months to hold a meeting of the council or of the local board because of failure to obtain a quorum, the minister may by order declare the seats of the members of the council or local board to be vacant, and a new election shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1977.

“(2) In the event that the seats of a majority of the members of a council or of a local board are for any reason declared vacant, the minister may by order provide for the fulfilling of the duties and obligations of the council or local board until such time as a new election is held in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1977, and the members so elected have taken office.”

And that the sections of the bill that follow shall be renumbered accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 6 be amended to read as follows:

“Section 388 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“388(1): The council of a municipality may pass bylaws,

“(a) for paying the members of council for attendance at meetings of council or of its committees such per diem rate as the council may determine;

“(b) for paying the members of council such per diem rate as council may determine for attendance when such attendance is authorized by resolution of council at meetings or at any place, whether held or located within or outside the boundaries of the municipality, other than meetings of any body in respect of which the members of council are paid remuneration pursuant to clause (a) or pursuant to any other provisions of this Act or any other general or special Act.

“1. A bylaw passed pursuant to this clause may define a class or classes of meetings or attendances at a place in respect of which a per diem rate may be paid and may authorize payment of a per diem rate, only in respect of such class or classes of meetings or attendances.

“2. For the purpose of this clause ‘attendance at meetings’ includes attendance by a member of council at any place to meet with one or more other persons for the purpose of pursuing any matter in the interests of the municipality; and ‘attendance at any place’ means attendance by a member of council at a place for the purpose of pursuing any matter in the interests of the municipality, whether or not any other person is present at such place.

“(2) Where a member of a council is paid remuneration under sections 205, 211 or 389, such member is not entitled to payment under this section for attendance at meetings or at a place referred to in clauses (a) or (b) of subsection 1.

“(3) In the case of a council of a county or a township, a bylaw passed pursuant to clause (a) or (b) of subsection 1 may provide for the payment of such amount as is determined by council for each mile necessarily travelled in attending such meetings or at such place.

“(4) The head of the council of a municipality may be paid for his services as a member of any public utility commission the same per diem rate as is determined by the council under clause (d) of subsection 1.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 7 be amended by deleting the following words in the sixth line of the amendment to subsection 1 of section 455; “for any period not exceeding five years,” so that the subsection will read:

“455(1) The council of every municipality may pass bylaws for purchasing, conditionally or otherwise, or for renting for a term of years or otherwise, machinery and appliances for the purposes of the corporation and for borrowing money for the purpose of paying the purchase price; and for issuing debentures for the money so borrowed; or for issuing to the vendor debentures in payment of the purchase money.”

Mr. Swart further moves that subsection 2 of 455 as it appears in section 7 be deleted; and that the figure “1” after the number “455” be deleted.

Mr. Swart: Section 455 of the present Municipal Act does two things. First of all, it permits purchase or rental of machinery and appliances by a municipality, and borrowing the money to pay for them. Secondly, it limits the period of repayment to five years -- and that is all that section 455 does.

The amendment which we have before us in Bill 40 -- and I’ll read the explanatory notes attached thereto -- states that the effect of the re-enactment is to extend from five years to 10 years the period over which moneys borrowed for the purpose of road making machinery may be repaid.

What that leaves in the bill is that subsection 1 of the bill now makes it permissive for a municipality to purchase appliances for their use but the term of repayment must be not longer than five years. For road machinery the period of repayment may be 10 years. I want to make it clear this is permissive legislation for the purchase of the appliances and the machinery.

My amendment to section 7 does two things: One, it removes the five-year limitation on repayment for appliances; second, it removes subsection 2 which is redundant because it is covered in another section of the Act which I will mention a little more fully in a minute.

I don’t say this is the most important piece of municipal legislation to come before this House, but to me, there is at least one rather important principle involved. And that principle is we are telling municipalities, by Bill 40, which we have before us, how long they may debenture for appliances. In this age of sophistication, I suggest first of all, it is unrealistic to set a limit of five years on the repayment and, second, it is a very paternal attitude towards the municipalities.

As I mentioned in second reading of this bill, many municipalities now have comprehensive, composite, money bylaws where they purchase a large number of different types of things including appliances and then issue debentures to cover those accumulated purchases. If some relatively small appliance is attached to a debenture for some large expenditure then there is probably good reason for that debenture to be more than five years. In fact, it makes them issue two debentures or perhaps three or four debentures, when one would be good enough. But more than that, I suggest to the parliamentary assistant and to the Treasurer, other sections of the Act very adequately cover this protection, if you wish to call it that, so a municipality doesn’t go out on a limb, go too far in debt and spread payments for small items over too long a period of time. Subsection 2 is almost exactly identical to part of section 288 of the Act and therefore I say it is redundant and should not be left in.

I want to say with regard to section 288 of the Act and the comments made by the parliamentary assistant in second reading that he is wrong in saying there is a fundamental difference between section 288 and section 7 of this bill.

I would like to read back what he said at the time of second reading on November 1. He says, “I find it somewhat inconsistent, and the hon. member for Welland-Thorold agrees. Specifically identifying a period of time, as in section 288, of 10 years, is somewhat inconsistent and then saying, under section 455, there should be no time period referred to at all, is somewhat inconsistent.” I want to say that there is a time period referred to under section 288.

[4:15]

The member for Durham West continued: “We think there should be some relevance and some fiscal and some financial responsibility that is identified in that particular section. On the actual differences in the sections, albeit they are referring to road-making equipment and appliances, section 455 also deals with lease purchase arrangements which are not dealt with in section 288.” -- I suggest that that statement is wrong; 288 covers any type of debt and I will read it in just a moment -- “So, although they do refer to road-making equipment in its broadest sense, section 455 goes into an area that is not referred to in section 288. Therefore, the point made by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold that section 288 would in fact apply in the reference of 10 years, we do not feel that that is so. Hence, we feel that the proposal for the amendment to section 455 as proposed should be, and hopefully will be, passed by this august body.”

The only difference between section 288 and section 455 if you read them is that 455 provides permissive authority to councils to buy this equipment. But if you’re dealing with the period of repayment it is identical with section 288. It covers identically the same things as section 288. I would like to read section 288 which is already in the Act and not proposed to change.

It starts off by saying, “A money bylaw.” Now let me give you the definition of a money bylaw. A money bylaw under the new definition means “a bylaw for contracting a debt or obligation or for borrowing money other than a bylaw passed under section 332.” As you know, section 332 just deals with current borrowing; it doesn’t deal with debentures or long-term debts. So that definition of a money bylaw certainly covers any agreement for rental.

Section 288: “A money bylaw shall provide the whole debt and the debentures, if any, to be issued therefor, shall be made payable within the respective periods hereinafter mentioned at furthest from the time the debentures are issued. If a debt is for railways, harbour works or improvements, gas or water-works or purchase of improvement of parks, or erection of secondary or public schools, houses, public hospitals and the buying of land therefor, or for electric light, heat or power works or water privileges or land use in connection therewith, or for acquiring land for a drill shed or armoury, in 30 years.” That may be the maximum.

Then clause (d): “if a debt is for the establishment of a system of public scavenging or the collection and disposal of ashes, refuse and garbage, in 20 years maximum. If the debt is for the purposes of road-making machinery and appliances, in 10 years.” That covers section 7 of this Act, in limiting the length of term of the debentures to cover road-making machinery.

Then the final clause there: “if the debt is for any other purpose in such term of years as the Municipal Board may approve.” The whole purpose of the Municipal Board is for protection that municipalities do not go too far in debt or do not spread debenture payments over too long a term, if it’s only for a small thing.

But then we come along in this section and are saying to the municipalities, “For the purchases of appliances we’re only going to permit you to issue debentures for five years.” Surely that overall section of the Act is adequate and we don’t have to write in here that we’re only going to permit them five years. And surely section 2 of the Act, which deals with the length of term of debentures or borrowing for road machinery and appliances, is adequately covered in section 288 of the Act.

I just say to the member for Durham West -- and I think correctly so -- that my amendment on behalf of my party will still authorize municipalities to make expenditures for those things for which they have been able to make expenditures. It will limit the debenture term for road machinery to 10 years and the other appliances which a municipality may buy will be subject to the terms as the Municipal Board may approve. I suggest to you that is adequate and, if we have any faith in municipalities at all, we shouldn’t be putting a five-year limit in this bill.

Mr. Ashe: I appreciate responding to the comments of the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. I don’t agree with all the conclusions he has reached. Some of them can be challenged and can be argued back and forth, particularly when he speaks of paternalism. I would think the fact that this particular amendment is before this committee is paternalism in itself. The amendments in Bill 40 received circulation to all municipalities and municipal organizations. Not one, Mr. Chairman, I point out to you, responded that it had any negative reaction to this particular section in the amending bill.

If they are so competent, and I agree they are, and if they can think for themselves, and I agree most of them can, then I would suggest that the hon. member for Welland-Thorold isn’t giving them that credit of being able to think for themselves. I point out again not one of them suggested this particular amendment. They obviously were not turned off by the guidelines -- and they are that; maximum periods of time -- that are suggested in this particular section.

I also disagree that there is an exact duplication between section 288 and section 455. If you carry along this paternalism bit, I feel it very difficult to come up with the conclusion of why, when section 288 was amended a year or so ago, it received approval. At that time, there was a change in the maximum period for a debenture, recognizing the increased cost for road-making equipment and so on, from five to 10 years. At that time, it’s my understanding that amendment passed with no problem at all and no particular adverse comments from that side of the House.

Again I find some inconsistency there. More importantly, there is reference in section 288, as pointed out by the hon. member, that the Municipal Board can determine an appropriate period of time for all other periods of borrowing that are not particularly and specifically referred to in that section. We all talk about in many ways and in many forums that we are trying to take away some of the time-consuming problems and more minor items that sometimes have to be arbitrated by the OMB. I would suggest that what is being talked about here and recommended by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold is exactly putting more implications and more decision-making, albeit of a minor nature, on the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Swart: Maybe that’s why places like Georgina township have bypassed the Municipal Board.

Mr. Ashe: I don’t think that that’s a particularly valid suggestion, albeit it is referred to in section 288. Also the interpretation that we have of conditional sales, option sales and so on are more adequately referred to in section 455 because they are not referred to at all in section 288, although I suppose you can argue, as the hon. member for Welland-Thorold has, that the particular description of a money bylaw adequately covers it. We suggest again why leave it at having to hunt around in various sections? Why not say something specifically? I don’t think there’s any problem in repeating once again in section 2 the reference to road-making machinery or appliances.

I don’t think it’s a very valid argument to suggest that municipalities put together many small items and issue one debenture. That’s a common statement of fact that I’m not challenging in itself, but the particular reference is that many appliances can be very small and of nominal value. I agree they can, but if you’re talking of hundreds or even thousands of dollars, I would suggest that municipalities wouldn’t even be contemplating the accumulation of these small items and putting them together with other borrowing situations because they’re going to pay for them in their cash flow in that particular current fiscal year or they’re going to have other reserve funds for replacement of that kind of equipment. I don’t think that’s a valid argument.

I would hope that the committee will see fit to leave the particular section as it is proposed. There is a rationale behind it. There is, more importantly, consistency behind it. If in another section of this same bill, we’re making a reference to 10 years, I feel section 455 should be consistent with that and not leave it to someone’s devices to have to refer back to another section. Many municipal people could look at section 455 as it is being proposed and conclude, very rightly, that other than certain appliances, the sky is the limit, and forget that there is even a section 288 in that same Act.

With those various points in mind, I hope that the committee will defeat this proposed amendment and go with section 7 as it is proposed in the bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, it’s our feeling that this section should stay the way it is. Taking into consideration the remarks that the member for Welland-Thorold has made, that there’s a basic principle at stake here with respect to limiting it to five years, it’s my feeling that if we are going to deal with principle here, we should deal with both section 455(1) and section 455(2), because if we’re not going to limit the one then we shouldn’t limit the other one. We feel that we should be consistent with what’s gone on in the past with the wishes of the municipalities in this matter and leave the section intact.

[5:00]

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 7, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 26, nays 71.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 40, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee reported two bills with amendments and one bill without.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 40, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 77, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Bill 81, An Act to amend the Small Claims Courts Act.

TOPSOIL PRESERVATION ACT

Mr. McNeil, in the absence of Hon. W. Newman, moved second reading of Bill 72.

Mr. Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant have a statement?

Mr. Nixon: Okay, Ronnie, this is it.

An hon. member: Sock it to him, Ron.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, the general purpose and intent of the bill is to provide enabling legislation to permit municipalities to pass laws regulating and prohibiting the removal of topsoil.

I would like to briefly deal with the kind of powers this bill provides. It is permissive, so a municipality may choose the provisions which it sees fit, and provides flexibility for the municipality to draft bylaws to meet local conditions.

The powers provided are for a general power to regulate or prohibit the removal of topsoil which may be authorized by the entire municipality or a defined area of the municipality. It gives municipalities power to provide for the issuing and renewing of permits for the removal of topsoil and a corresponding power to provide for refusal to issue and to renew such permits; and the grounds for any of these actions may be spelled out in the bylaw.

It also provides a general power to prohibit the removal of topsoil without a permit and a general power to require the rehabilitation of lands from which the topsoil has been removed.

Powers are also included to prescribe the standards and the procedures for rehabilitation that must be followed. There is a general power included to exempt lands or persons from the bylaw. There are a number of exemptions in the bill, such as normal agricultural practices which are exempted in any bylaw. This particularly includes topsoil removal when it is an incidental part of such agricultural activities as sod farming, greenhouse operations and nurseries.

Drainage operations under the Drainage Act or The Tile Drainage Act are exempted, as is the removal of topsoil in connection with operations authorized under the Pits and Quarries Control Act. In the same fashion, operations under the Mining Act are excluded in that they could be controlled under the present conditions of issuing permits under these acts.

The removal of topsoil by Crown agencies and Ontario Hydro is exempt. The clause also prevents a bylaw of a local municipality from interfering with topsoil removal by a county or a regional municipality.

Operations under the Ontario Energy Board Act, as well as underground services, for example Bell Telephone, Hydro and water are exempted. In the case of the latter three, the exemption is conditional on the topsoil being removed and then held for subsequent replacement. It also provides a provision that any minor operation, in this particular case less than five cubic meters, equivalent to an ordinary truckload, in a three-month period, is also exempt.

In terms of enforcement procedures under the Act, part XXI of the Municipal Act applies to this so that those same types of provisions in the Municipal Act can be used to enforce the bylaws and pass fines.

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of this bill is further indication of the speed at which this government moves on an important matter such as the indiscriminate mining of our natural resources. I think the member for Elgin can testify to the speed at which this government moves, because it took the Premier (Mr. Davis) 18 years to realize the member for Elgin had ministerial potential.

For the past three or four years municipalities have expressed concern that topsoil removal is a major problem and should be controlled. I vaguely recalled an article which appeared in the Toronto Star, in 1975 I believe it was, and with the assistance of caucus research I was able to obtain that article.

The article was entitled, “Topsoil Being Rustled in Ontario.” I want to read a small portion of that article.

“The mishandling of topsoil, particularly in construction and agriculture, has become one of the latest worries of scientists and politicians.” Although I sometimes wonder how many politicians have become very concerned about the removal of topsoil. To continue:

“‘Increasingly, I feel laws must be enacted to preserve topsoil use,’ said University of Guelph resource scientist Richard Rick Richards.

“Soil erosion was the number one problem in Ontario before land management was introduced, Richards said, and without wise management practices it is possible to foresee that soil erosion could become a problem again.

“Susan Singh, associate director of the food land section of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, has called land management the next frontier in pollution control of the Great Lakes which are threatened by run-offs from pesticides and fertilizers.

“Howard Henry, associate director of the soils and crops branch of the agricultural ministry, said: ‘Valuable topsoil is too frequently buried in the construction of roads and buildings’.”

Mr. Nixon: By the way, that’s George Henry’s grandson.

Mr. Riddell: “He said legislation drafted, but not yet presented to the Legislature, will seek to enforce the efficient use of topsoil in much the same way as the Pits and Quarries Act. That Act polices gravel pit operators who must return topsoil to the rehabilitated sites of worked-out gravel pits.”

Now it’s interesting to note from this article that legislation was drafted two years ago which would govern the use of topsoil in much the same way as the Pits and Quarries Act. Now that Act did not pass the onus to the municipalities for the policing of gravel pits and gravel pit operators to ensure rehabilitation of the site after the aggregate is mined, but rather the onus was placed, and rightfully so, on the provincial government.

While this government has seen fit to make the preservation of topsoil a municipal responsibility, and inasmuch as I believe that municipalities by and large meet their obligations responsibly, I can however foresee some municipalities giving this matter just a passing glance. So can we assume, then, that this government will be prepared to legislate topsoil use if the municipalities do not pass bylaws to control soil stripping in their own municipalities?

I am also concerned about the exemptions under this Act. A bylaw passed by a municipality does not apply to the removal of topsoil by a Crown agency or Ontario Hydro. Surely Ontario Hydro or some other Crown agency should not be given special rights to mine topsoil.

The day may well come when much of the land devoured by Ontario Hydro or other Crown agencies will have to be put back into production, and I would hope that the topsoil would be in close proximity to the place or origin so that it could be used once again for agricultural purposes.

The same can be said for soil that’s removed along Hydro corridors and trans-Canada pipelines, yet the exemption is made for the removal of topsoil as an incidental part of any construction for which leave to construct has been granted pursuant to the Ontario Energy Board Act; so I am assuming the government is taking into consideration such things as Hydro corridors, pipelines, et cetera. I just don’t feel that Crown corporations and Ontario Hydro should be allowed to go merrily on their way without some kind of control by this government.

[5:15]

I wasn’t too sure about the intent of section 2(2)(i): “The removal of topsoil” -- this is another exemption -- “The removal of topsoil where the quantity of topsoil removed in any one lot does not in any consecutive three-month period exceed five cubic metres.”

I suppose this provides some flexibility so that farmers, or other people, may be able to remove topsoil if they wish to put in a swimming pool or if they wish to dig a basement under their house. Maybe the minister can help me to understand this clause a little better, but am I to assume that at the end of each three-month period that the owner of a lot could mine five cubic metres of topsoil? Now that’s not a great deal, it may be a truckload of topsoil, but depending on the size of the lot, I could see where over a period of years much of that topsoil could be mined. If it is just to provide some flexibility so that a person may dig a swimming pool on his lot, then I can see the purpose of that particular clause. Maybe there will be further clarification in the response from the ministry.

So certainly we are going to support the bill; but again I am just wondering if it should not be a provincial responsibility and not one that’s passed off to the municipality, because I can see where one municipality could perhaps pass a bylaw and the adjacent municipality may not consider it that important, in which case topsoil could be mined and there would be no way of policing or controlling it. I do look forward to the response from the ministry.

Mr. MacDonald: The case has been put by the hon. member for Middlesex and most of what I have to say is a reiteration of it, but let me reiterate a bit.

The government apparently has become persuaded that topsoil has to be preserved in this province, and that’s good. If people driving around the highways in the province of Ontario were impressed, puzzled or concerned at seeing these monstrous trucks carrying tons of sod into the cities, representing the mining of prime agricultural land -- pardon?

Mr. Nixon: That’s not topsoil, sod trucks?

Mr. MacDonald: The sod truck is mining some of the topsoil.

Mr. Nixon: That is not controlled by this to a great extent.

Mr. MacDonald: Of course it can be controlled by this.

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Riddell: Sod farming is exempt under this.

Mr. MacDonald: Sod farming is exempted under this? Well that makes it even worse.

Mr. Eaton: Here we go.

Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?

Mr. Nixon: We are going to have a division again, he is going to work himself up.

Mr. MacDonald: My point was simply that the government has finally woken up to the fact that something must be done to protect topsoil, whether it be topsoil extracted as topsoil, or whether it be, as it is now pointed out to me, the topsoil involved in sod farming.

But having come to that decision, the next question is why do you come in with a half measure? Because that is what this bill is, a half measure. The bill is permissive, therefore it permits a municipality to move if its officials become sufficiently apprised of the problem. But other municipalities, that either have looked at the problem and sloughed it off or have not even bothered looking at the problem, can continue to go on their merry way and the mining continues.

As was pointed out by the hon. member who has just spoken, other legislation passed by this government to preserve resources has usually made provincial authorities responsible; but here you haven’t the courage to move at the provincial level, you come in with just permissive legislation. The net result is that in many municipalities in this province, indeed in many instances the municipalities that most need the protection of a bylaw to avoid topsoil mining or the mining of our prime agricultural lands, local authorities are not going to move. That’s at best, a half measure.

The second point, that clearly has already been enunciated and I reiterate it, is the list of exemptions. One wonders, sometimes, what are the thought processes of this government. You bring in an Act which lays down rules that must be lived up to; then you bring in exemptions that permit the public utilities, or the most powerful people, to be able to breach the Act by having an exemption, in this instance the exemption being right in the Act itself.

Just by way of an aside, you have it in the Environmental Assessment Act. You bring in an Act that says every project must be assessed for its environmental impact, and then the biggest single project that this province will have to face, in Darlington, is exempted.

Here you have a list of exemptions, the net impact of which, quite frankly, is inestimable. I don’t know really what value the Act is going to be, even in terms of the municipalities that may pass the bylaws, because of such a significant list of exemptions. The thing that is the most disturbing of all is why, for example Crown agencies, Ontario Hydro or public utilities of one kind or another, whether they’re publicly or privately-owned, should be exempt under this Act from the mining of prime agricultural land? I’d be interested to hear, from the parliamentary assistant, the government’s explanation.

However, I conclude in essentially the same way as the spokesman for the Liberal Party concluded; at least this empowers those municipalities which have become apprised of the problem and want the authority to cope with it to be able to cope legally with it. Whether they’re going to cope adequately we’ll have to see, that will depend on an assessment of the impact of all of the exemptions.

Half a loaf is better than none. It’s a step in the right direction, and the bill should be supported for that reason; but it is a woefully inadequate and typical kind of bill that we expect from this government.

Mr. Hall: I want to speak briefly in support of this bill. Municipalities in my area have been wanting to stop certain practices that have been going on for several years. They have tried very hard to find any legislation that would assist them in their concern for preservation of local topsoil, but the province has been found wanting, up until now, in providing the authority they need.

I, too, am concerned about the list of exclusions, and I’ll touch on that in a minute. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, when installing service roads and interchanges in the Niagara Peninsula, in my view bought topsoil for its needs around such interchanges, for sodding and seeding, without any concern for the source of the material.

I know from personal experience of one first class peach orchard that was completely levelled, and the soil from it has now been buried under the Queen Elizabeth Way; not in the pavement section, I don’t mean to imply that. It seems to me that ministry set a poor example. There’s the question of responsibility to the general public, if the government of the province has not been concerned it’s rather hard to expect others to be concerned.

I am interested to hear from the proponent of the bill why the counties and regions are exempted, along with the other agencies. If the municipality is expected to be responsible, I can’t understand why their actions shouldn’t be respected and supported by the counties and regions involved. Unless the parliamentary assistant was talking about merely rights of ways controlled by counties and regions, then I would like to have a further explanation. If that is the case, it makes sense. I hope he’ll respond on this point.

Mr. Germa: I think I understand that the intent of the bill is so that people cannot destroy the prime agricultural land by transporting top soil out of that area so that large acreages in Ontario then would not be productive. I think it will also have the effect of forcing developers to take care or precautions when they are doing their development to preserve the topsoil which they have, and not churn it under with bulldozers so that that topsoil is buried under clay or some other substance. The point I want to make is related to my riding. My riding seems to be unique inasmuch as almost everything that happens in the province of Ontario does not apply to my riding.

I think most members of this House know that the city of Sudbury 25 years ago was totally denuded of topsoil. That came about, Mr. Speaker, as a result of cutting timber without replacement. Following that process the introduction of mining and smelting produced poisonous sulphur dioxide fumes which prevented the forest from coming back to preserve the topsoil. Consequently, over a period of 20 or 25 years all topsoil was eroded and washed away -- I know where it is, by the way. The point of the matter is that the whole city of Sudbury was in fact rock and clay.

Mr. Mancini: Where is it, Bud?

Mr. Germa: If this law had been in effect at that point in time the very lot on which my house sits could not have a lawn, nor could any of my neighbours have a lawn, because every cubic yard of topsoil in the city of Sudbury had to be transported in from some other area.

I think it is a question for the minister to respond to. Here you have a unique situation, where the topsoil has been denuded for one reason or another.

I think it is beneficial to us in the city of Sudbury that we were able to transport in topsoil, and at least have a couple of trees, a few blades of grass. Even to this day we have continually to replenish the topsoil on our lawns because the topsoil is not natural there.

Everybody, of course, understands the expense involved. All a person puts in to grow his lawn is probably three inches of topsoil, he uses it very sparingly, but because the growth is not such that it retains the topsoil it is gradually eroded away. I would say every 10 or 15 years everybody in the city, in my riding, has to go someplace and buy more truck loads of topsoil to keep his lawn going.

I don’t know just what we are going to do if the regional municipality of Sudbury passes a bylaw which will prevent the removal of topsoil from any place. In 20 years we are going to be back where we were -- with not one blade of grass left, not one tree; or not even a carrot in Sudbury. Some people bring in topsoil to run their little backyard garden. Without permission and the right to bring topsoil in you are just going to create another back-of-the-moon situation.

Mr. Mancini: I rise to speak on Bill 72. May I also add my congratulations to the member for Elgin, who I am sure will carry out his responsibilities in a very fine manner.

I would like to say that I am very concerned about some portions of the bill. I am extremely pleased to see in section 2(e) state that the local municipalities have the authority to pass regulations and bylaws for the rehabilitation of agricultural land.

In my riding, where we have extensive mining and open pit quarries, we’ve seen many areas of our landscape put in pretty ugly-looking shape; now I know that the municipalities will have the power to have those areas put back into the condition they once were.

As the member for Elgin well knows Essex South is a very fine agricultural community. I see under exemptions that sod farming and greenhouse operations will not come into this Act. I am pleased for that part of the bill because, as the member for Elgin knows we have 90 per cent of all the greenhouse industry in the province of Ontario in our riding.

Since I am speaking about greenhouses, I want the member for Elgin to bring back to the Minister of Agriculture and Food the thought that if he doesn’t get off his rear and do something for the greenhouse industry we’re going to lose it. That’s just an aside.

[5:30]

Mr. Riddell: You know what they are doing, they are going to put one up at Douglas Point.

Mr. Mancini: Secondly, I’d like to speak about another exemption that I’m extremely disappointed with. If the member for Elgin can do anything about this exemption, I would urge him to speak with his cabinet colleagues to see if this can be changed in the future.

I don’t understand how the members on that side of the House, every time we have an important piece of legislation that puts regulations on most of the people of Ontario exempt Ontario Hydro. I don’t understand for one minute why the biggest spender of the province, the biggest contractor in the province, an agency which has a very tarnished reputation, is always exempted. Why do you keep exempting Hydro? That’s a very fundamental question. Why do you exempt that agency? Why should they not come under the same scrutiny as others? What have they done to deserve special status? Why should the ordinary person of Ontario feel there are laws for him and not for this government agency or others?

I find it very difficult to support this part of the bill. I just wish it wasn’t there. I say to the member for Elgin that if there is anything he can do to possibly change it in the future this would be a feather in his cap.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m pleased to see the government has finally brought in this type of legislation, an Act to Preserve the Topsoil of Ontario. I can recall a number of years ago that I asked the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to bring it under control through the Planning Act. We must have some regulation to control the removal of topsoil in Ontario.

I, like the other members who have spoken previously, am concerned about the areas in the Act that permits the exemptions. There are a number of areas, there must be about seven or eight of them concerning the Ontario Energy Board for example, that shouldn’t have the exemptions under this Act.

If you look at the utilities, such as the gas utility industry going along the countryside and the roads putting in new pipelines, they certainly do a lot of damage to the soil in the area. Perhaps this ground should be conserved. Perhaps much of it could be put into a soil bank within a municipality, as the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) suggested. They need topsoil in the Sudbury area to have grass around their homes, which sometimes has to be replaced due to erosion that takes place in the area.

I notice under the Mining Act that there are also exemptions; I suppose that comes under the Pits and Quarries Control Act too. I can cite a particular industry under the Pits and Quarries Act, Port Colborne Quarries, which has conserved topsoil and used it to quite an extent in a rehabilitation program, which has made a vast improvement around its quarry, so much of the extra subsoil can be used.

I know when I first moved to Sherkston it was a habit of certain businessmen in that area to go out and strip 25, 30, and even 50 acres of excellent soil; which was then left to grow up into weeds, that’s about what has remained. I’m not aware of any provisions here for rehabilitation of the land that has been stripped of the topsoil. Yes, I see in section 2(1)(e), “requiring rehabilitation of lands from which the topsoil has been removed.”

I want to look at the particular area that means that you’re going to have to have another bylaw officer in the community; that’s going to add an extra cost to the municipality. Perhaps the building inspector will have to look after that area.

But I think the most important item here, as the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has mentioned, is about leaving the responsibility under the Act to the local municipalities.

You could have one municipality that would jump onto this and pass a bylaw, while next door the neighbouring municipality would not have a bylaw and you would have almost a runaway of topsoil there. You’d have almost the same conditions as existed before the Pits and Quarries Act; you’d have, in a sense, an extractive industry there.

I would suggest to the minister where there is a county form of government or a regional form of government that they should administer the bylaw and perhaps it can be tied into a regional plan.

I suppose under certain conditions, you’re going to have to permit a certain amount of removal of topsoil, that is in the matter of topsoil for the production of sod. The Minister of Transportation and Communications uses quite a bit of that. However, in some cases they remove good topsoil along the highways and it perhaps goes to some other area; now that could have been used for a topsoil base.

I would suggest that perhaps the ministry should let the region or a county form of government administer this particular section of the Act so that you have uniformity across the region. That’s the method we should be following.

I question the areas that are exempt. I see no reason why certain exemptions should be permitted, particularly for a Crown agency such as Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Energy Board and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I can cite a current instance where they’re constructing an overpass on the regional road in Stevensville connecting with the Queen Elizabeth Way. To put in the cloverleaf there they’ve removed acres of topsoil and earth to a depth of maybe six or seven feet and have left nothing but a large hole in the ground, without any consideration at all for conservation.

It could be used for a bird sanctuary if it was located in the right spot, but usually it is constructed right along the Queen Elizabeth Way and there is not much chance of any vegetation growing around that particular pond or that open hole.

I think that perhaps the minister should be looking at some of the MTC procedures and methods. They shouldn’t be permitted to do some of the things they do. They leave an ungodly-looking sight along the highway. I would suggest that this is one area where there should be no exemption. MTC should be told to rehabilitate a certain area, put in trees around the pond, or whatever it may be, and provide a sanctuary for birds and animals.

But I support the bill in principle. It’s long overdue and I think it's a step in the right direction.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to thank the hon. members opposite for their kind remarks and for their criticism.

Mr. Lewis: They weren’t kindly. They were sarcastic and venomous. You couldn’t distinguish.

Mr. McNeil: Oh, I’m sorry. I must have misinterpreted.

Mr. Lewis: I guess so. That happens, Ronnie.

Mr. McNeil: Being a Tory, I might be forgiven for doing that.

Mr. Lewis: Ronnie, we love you. We love you, Ronnie.

Mr. McNeil: Now, if I was an NDP member, probably that’s the way I would interpret them.

First of all, I’d like to reply to the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex. I think I should point out that topsoil removal is not similar to rehabilitation of pits and quarries. I think he recognizes that the type of topsoil in this province varies even within municipalities and from location to location whereas pits and quarries have practically the same problem throughout the entire province.

As the hon. members are quite well aware the municipalities have requested this legislation. They requested that it be placed in their hands because they feel that they can control it within the municipality. Of course, the legislation even allows them to designate an area in the municipality if that is what they so desire.

Section 2(i) is designed to prevent the bylaw from being applied to rather minor situations. I might point out to the member that, as I understand it, if a farmer wanted to take a bit of topsoil to fill in an area in one of his fields it wouldn’t be necessary for him to apply for a permit as long as there wasn’t a big area involved. I think you would agree with me that removing a truckload, which is the amount that’s mentioned, wouldn’t be very attractive, commercially, to anyone in the business.

One of the reasons the Crown corporations and Hydro are exempted is because it’s felt they’d be controlled and governed by provincial legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: By what?

Mr. McNeil: By the present provincial legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: In other words, they’re not controlled at all?

Mr. McNeil: I think they are under various Acts.

Mr. Riddell: What provincial legislation? There is no provincial legislation.

Mr. McNeil: Actually, with any installation Hydro has put up other than pipelines, the land has been well rehabilitated when they’re completed and the land under the power lines is workable throughout the province. It isn’t workable within the area because of the large machinery we have now in use on most of our farms in the province.

The member for York South was asking about sod farming. I’m told with modern technology and the amount of fertilizer used, the land in sod farming is in better condition after the small amount of topsoil is removed than it was before. They have modern machinery which only skims a very, very small amount of land and then a lot of fertilizer is poured onto the soil. In addition they develop a very thick matted grass and there’s a lot of fibre and organic matter in the soil. The ministry officials involved in soil maintenance in this province claim the soil is being quite well maintained under present conditions, as far as sod farming is concerned.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m a little skeptical but I’ll accept the member’s word for it.

Mr. McNeil: Thanks, I’m glad to hear that.

Mr. Mancini: That’s because we trust you, Ron, but not Bill Newman.

Mr. MacDonald: Nor Bob Eaton.

Mr. McNeil: You fellows are very kind to me today.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, you are misunderstanding again. Do you remember that talk we had in St. Thomas? I took you behind the barn and explained what the situation was.

Mr. McNeil: I forget whose barn that was now.

Mr. Lane: It was a bar, wasn’t it?

Mr. McNeil: No, barn, he said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Which section of the bill refers to a barn?

Mr. McNeil: We feel this bill can be more effective if it’s placed in the hands of municipalities because municipalities are requesting this type of legislation. It would be more effective in their hands than in the hands of the entire province because of the very nature and characteristic of the commodity with which we’re dealing. Of course, I think we all believe in local autonomy.

All exemptions mentioned are relatively small-scale removals and we feel they’re incidental to legitimate activities with respect to this bill.

I think it was the member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall) who spoke next; he was quite concerned about the fact that the counties and regions were excluded. It is rather difficult and I think we all recognize that the counties and regions cannot be governed by the local municipalities.

[5:45]

Mr. Haggerty: What about unorganized territories?

Mr. McNeil: There is nothing to prevent them from being involved in this type of legislation.

The member for Sudbury was quite concerned about whether any topsoil would be removed from his municipality. I might say that I would think that this is one of the reasons for having it under the control of the local municipality. There would be no problem with Sudbury importing topsoil.

Mr. MacDonald: What if the neighbouring municipalities passed a bylaw?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McNeil: Well, I think that the --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Elgin has the floor.

Mr. McNeil: I think the local municipalities or the neighbouring municipalities would pass a sensible bylaw. I have a great deal of confidence in the local autonomy and in the local members of council.

Mr. Warner: It is definitely not reciprocal.

Mr. MacDonald: I am glad you are in favour of local autonomy.

Mr. McNeil: I appreciate the remarks of the member for Essex South. I am sorry that he is having a little trouble with his greenhouse industry, but I think that those matters can be resolved.

Mr. Lewis: He was the most nasty. Of course, you spread a little green around it.

Mr. McNeil: I appreciate also the remarks from the member for Erie. I might say that I have always felt that the various road authorities in this province do a fairly good job of rehabilitation --

Mr. di Santo: You would make a good leader.

Mr. McNeil: -- with respect to topsoil removal. I know the municipalities in my area remove the topsoil and then they replace it after the road is constructed. As a rule, they have a little left over, so I think they are actually trying to do a good job with respect to rehabilitation. I don’t think that there will be much of a problem with respect to the municipalities in this province.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 72, An Act to preserve Topsoil in Ontario.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT AGT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, 1974.

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to add a few comments on Bill 73.

It is no doubt complementary to the changes of the recent federal legislation related to old age security. The federal legislation deals perhaps more with the criteria for eligibility for a pension in full or in part. Forty years of residence in Canada after the age of 18 qualifies an application at the age of 65 for full pension payable anywhere in the world. Under the new rules, partial pensions are established and each year of residence in Canada after the age of 18 has the same value of one-fortieth of a full pension. Ten years of residence in Canada after the age of 18 has a value of ten-fortieths of a full pension.

The federal amendments make it possible for the old age security pension program to include a reciprocal social security agreement with other countries and the benefits are portable by agreement when they are negotiated.

Mr. Lewis: Sure creates two classes of citizens -- that is what the federal legislation does.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, that’s what was said last year. I believe in the amendments to this guaranteed annual income --

Mr. Lewis: It is great that you are supporting it.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s a step in the right direction. What it actually does is ensure that those persons who contribute to old age security will receive the maximum benefits.

My area is close to the American border. In the past the federal government perhaps has been over-generous in this particular type of legislation. A person just had to move into the country and claim residence by paying municipal taxes for a period of 10 years. It has been a great benefit to those landed immigrants or citizens moving in from the United States without taking out Canadian citizenship. It has its advantages for Canadians who contribute to it.

I am well aware of the social security program in the United States. Under that scheme a Canadian working in the United States must contribute to that social program before receiving benefits.

Mr. Lewis: The problem is not with the Americans. The question is raised about new immigrants to Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: The section has a provision which will exempt family allowance benefits as an income supplement, and spouse’s allowance. Parents and guardians will benefit from this change.

The bill to my knowledge does not suggest portability of the Ontario guaranteed annual income system. Under section 4 the explanatory notes state: “Subsection 4 of the new section 1a empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations to adapt the monthly benefit provisions of the Act to situations, as yet unknown -- I am a little bit lost on just what the intent of the bill is in this particular area -- “which may arise when agreements between Canada and other countries are made, as provided in section 22.2 of the Old Age Security Act (Canada) for the payment of old age security benefits.” Perhaps that may answer the question that the leader of the third party has asked.

I see no change in the benefit as far as the cost and involvement of the provincial government is concerned. This still remains at $38.88. I thought that we would see an indexing here -- the same as applied by the federal government to old age security and old age supplement.

Those are the comments that I have about the bill. We support it in principle.

Mr. McClellan: I did have some comments to make in opposition to the bill. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, because of the hour if it would make sense at this time to adjourn the debate and resume it --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is still five minutes. It is entirely up to the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, you wouldn’t have to adjourn the debate. If the hon. members want to call it 6 o’clock, that’s all right with us.

ANSWER TO A WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wonder if I might at this point table the answer to question 27 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Bellwoods has two hours, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Of course we don’t want him to get a second wind, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.