Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

BUSINESS CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of consideration of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Business Corporation Act.

On section 21:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. M. N. Davison moves that section 21 of the bill be amended by deleting the words “or any signature of an officer of the ministry designated by the regulations.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: I understand very well the position the minister is in in terms of signing documents, and specifically documents which may be used later as evidence. I understand the time constraints of the job and I know it is just not practical for the minister to sign every single one of these documents; I am fully aware of that. I have no objection to one of two methods being used as an alternative; either an official of the ministry being designated to sign the document instead of the minister, or the use of some sort of mechanical reproduction or a signature machine by the minister’s support staff, if I can divide his staff in that fashion.

What I am a little concerned about is the fact that people other than the minister who had been designated to sign things would have their own signature machines or have their signature run off. There is an element of ministerial responsibility, so it is important that we make a distinction between the minister and the officials on his staff.

Understanding fully the time constraints on the minister, understanding the way these things operate, I have no objection whatsoever to the minister designating responsibility for signing documents to his staff, to the officials in his ministry. I have no objection to some mechanical reproduction of his signature or a signature machine, but I think we can draw the line there. We don’t need to go down the road of other people having signature machines or having their names run off on a mimeograph. That, simply is the reason and the rationale for the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is an interesting point. I recognize the comment made by the sponsor of the amendment with respect to the minister having the opportunity of having his signature reproduced by machine or by printing. I suppose it really depends on who, in fact, would be the civil servant able to have this responsibility. If, for example, this is a senior person within the ministry, a person who is known and responsible at a director level or whatever, then I would have no particular objection to having it done as proposed by the minister, and as a result I would not support the amendment. If, on the other hand, this were going to require much additional time, or this were a task that was going to be performed by a quite junior person, then there would be some merit in the amendment. It really depends on hearing from the minister as to Who the person is and what level of responsibility the person would have who is going to be doing this. It really hinges on that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, to answer the questions: First of all, the one that should have been asked is, who is doing it now? As a matter of fact, the person who is doing it now on certificates of incorporation and related certificates is the controller of records -- not even the minister; the controller of records. The member is going to ask, what is the authority? The authority is section 83 of the Ontario Regulations, 452/76. Her signature comes under the written authorization of the controller. Her signature is written on each certificate by an auto pen operated by a clerk.

The procedure is based upon common law. All we are doing in this section is putting it under statute that we have to designate the person whose signature is used; it’s not that of the minister. Then the signature is reproduced exactly as the honourable member said, by auto pen. It is the signature of the controller of record, regardless of who pushes the auto pen. What it is doing is putting under statute what has always been done under the existing act and under the authorization of common law.

Mr. Breithaupt: I must say I would far prefer to have it under statute than under regulations, but that is a satisfactory answer to me at least.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m sorry; what was the title of the individual?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The controller of records.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The amendment to the Business Corporations Act as proposed by the minister in section 21 of this bill will not designate by regulation exclusively the incumbent of that position. It is a much broader power that is being given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council when the phrase used is “or any signature of an officer of the ministry as designated by the regulations.” It opens the door fairly broadly. I understand the minister’s concern and his position, but it does not answer the question in my mind that led me to place the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Perhaps I can try again. Section 33 of the regulations now authorizes the executive director, the senior legal officer, the director of the company services branch, the controller of records, or the assistant controller of records to sign any certificate required or authorized by the act. just to give the member an idea of the volume and why we have gone to the present system, more than 1,000 certificates weekly are required to be signed in the companies division. Of these, more than 500 are certificates of incorporation. With such volumes it is impractical and unrealistic, as has been mentioned by the honourable members, to require my officials to sign these certificates manually. Their time is better otherwise spent. Furthermore, it would be contrary to the intent of this act, which is to speed up incorporation.

The difficulty with using only the minister’s signature is that time is required to make a signature plate when a minister is replaced or changed for any reason. As members will notice on the elevators, only a certain number of elevator certificates as yet bear my signature. It took up to three months for birth certificates to bear my signature. I am thrifty; why not use the old blanks? There are a great many things out there where reproductions are valid that we were able to carry on.

If we are only going to use a mechanical reproduction of my signature, once again there can be interruptions and so forth. Quite frankly, one of the things that concerns me is that a whole host of people are able to use the mechanical reproduction of the minister’s signature. Security does become a problem. It is not there in the others, and quite frankly I think it is fair, practical and equitable; I don’t think there is a danger. They have to be designated in the regulation. There is no intent to designate more than are there now. What it is really doing is putting it into statute rather than relying upon common law. I trust that will answer the concerns of the member.

Mr. Breithaupt: I was just going to comment on what the minister had said. I always feel rather sorry for the poor chap who has to go around in the elevators and put those stickers over one minister’s name as another minister comes forward. Hopefully we can avoid that in this circumstance. The person designated would probably be designated for this one purpose only, so the security is a certain factor.

As the minister has stated, it is done in one form by a regulation now. It will, as a result of this amendment, continue to be done by a regulation. All we are doing is giving a somewhat higher profile to the matter by putting that portion of it in the act, and that seems quite reasonable to me.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Just finally, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister if his position is as I understand it, it probably would have been more appropriate to simply list the titles of the officials in the legislation if we were concerned about it being up front by way of statute rather than by way of regulation. Maybe that is something he will consider when he next rewrites the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion or comment on section 21, or the proposed amendment thereto?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

The amendment is lost.

Section 21 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Where is the next question?

The minister bas an amendment here Mr. Minister, do you wish to make that amendment to section 22?

On section 22:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 266a of the act, as set out in section 22 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

Date of articles:

“(2) Articles filed by the minister under the act shall have effect from the date of the certificate endorsed thereon, notwithstanding that any action required to be taken by the minister under this act with respect to the endorsement of certificate and filing by him is taken at a later date.”

Would the minister make an explanation of that amendment?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you will recall, when this committee last met on this bill I gave an overview of this particular amendment. It revolves around a recent law case, C.P.W. Valves Instrument Limited versus Scott, 5 Alberta Law Reports (2nd) 1978, 271.

Interpreting the Alberta companies act has caused some concern about the certainty of the date of incorporation of a company under Ontario law. It is necessary in the commercial world that businessmen be able to rely upon the date of incorporation without fear of a court looking behind.

This amendment is intended to ensure that no one will attempt to have the courts find that the date in a certificate of incorporation is not in law the date of incorporation.

[8:15]

Mr. M. N. Davison: I am not particularly opposed to the minister’s amendment, but I must admit to some confusion. Perhaps somebody can help me with this.

Section 266(1) and (2) of the act, which is what is being amended by section 21 in the minister’s amendment to his amendment, refer to certificates and certificates exclusively. Section 1 of the Business Corporations Act, which is the definition section, contains in section 1(1)(vi) a definition of certificate of incorporation, and in section 1(1)(ii) a definition of articles. I will not bother reading them into the record, but articles and certificates are two different things. Section 266 deals exclusively with certificates. What I am not sure I understand is whether or not the minister’s current amendment is in order, amending as it does a section dealing with certificates to make this change which deals with articles. If it is in order, I am perfectly happy with it, but I am somewhat confused.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is no problem. The articles are filed by me, the certificate is issued. It really deals with the date on the certificate, so there is no confusion.

The amendment is that the articles filed by me shall have effect from the date of the certificate endorsement. It really deals with the certificate, not the date I file the articles. This is to avoid the confusion caused by the courts being asked to select which date. It is dealing with the certificate, it is not dealing with the articles. It merely puts down once and for all that the date on the certificate is the effective date, regardless of when I file the articles later. If I file them on the same day, fine; if I file them at a later date, no matter.

This does occur, and this was the thrust of the Alberta case. The certificate was issued under one date, the articles filed under their act on another. The courts ruled that it was the date the articles were filed and this caused the confusion. This way it is the date on the certificate; it has nothing to do with the content of the articles or anything else.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If it is good enough for the minister it is good enough for me.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.

On section 25:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 271(j) of the act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof: “Permitting punctuation marks and other marks referred to in section 8(3).”

Hon. Mr. Drea further moves that the said section 271 be amended by adding thereto the following clause: “(l) Prescribing the matters that the minister shall take into consideration in determining whether a name is contrary to section 7.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to permit the extensive regulations required to guide incorporators when deciding upon the acceptability of a proposed corporate name. The matters the minister must take into consideration when determining whether a name is contrary to the act are found in case law. With this regulation it will not be necessary for incorporators to have recourse to case law to ascertain what are the basic considerations for acceptable corporate names. As a result, it should be less time-consuming for incorporators to choose a name under the act.

This is the commitment, quite frankly, that we made to the legal profession when bringing this in. Under the present act it is the minister who is responsible for the final acceptability of the name; under the amendments the onus will be entirely upon the incorporator, and for practical purposes upon his solicitor. As the House now knows, there is the subjective test, as it is known in the profession, by which solicitors determine whether the name is contrary to the act. By contrary, I mean implying falsely a connection with the crown, with the government, using the word co-operative and a number of other restrictions. Case law has determined the grey areas there, it is very well set down.

Now the onus is entirely upon them, we think it only fair that it be spelled out completely in regulations so the solicitor, or indeed if there is an incorporator who chooses to do his own without benefit of a solicitor, both will know very clearly the certain names that are contrary to this particular section.

The first part of the amendment is merely to bring clause (j) into conformity with section 6(3) permitting punctuation marks and other marks as referred to. We just want to make this section consistent with the earlier one.

Motion agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26 agreed to.

Bill 34, as amended, reported.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading On motion:

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is a housekeeping bill. The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act was amended in 1975 to clarify the law in relation to rights of owners and mortgagees in situations where the lessee had the freehold title, that is ownership, transferred to him by the lessor.

The amendments at that time merely preserved the existing rights and responsibility of the parties exactly as they were before the lessee purchased the freehold. The problems arose because of the legal doctrine of merger. Normally, where a person holding a lease buys the property, the leasehold interest is said to merge in the freehold interest and the lease disappears.

This has serious implications where there is a mortgage on the leasehold interest, because the security of the mortgagee would disappear if the lease disappeared under the doctrine of merger. No merger of interest takes place under law if the parties do not intend merger. The law presumes there was no intention of merger where non-merger would be consistent with the duty of the owner.

In this case, the owner has the duty to pay off the mortgage and not to try to destroy the security of the mortgagee. There are court decisions which hold that merger does not take place in this situation. That does not settle the question of the rights of the owner and the mortgagee. It is not clear whether the mortgage remains a mortgage enforceable by the usual remedies of foreclosure and power of sale, or whether the mortgage becomes a charge or a lien of a different nature.

As between a first and a second leasehold mortgage, it is also not clear whether they retain their priorities, or whether they both rank equally under the purchase of the freehold.

For those reasons, section 37 was amended in 1975 to cover lessees from Ontario Housing Corporation who subsequently bought the property.

Recently, the Ministry of Housing has decided to transfer the home ownership part of Ontario Housing Corporation’s operation to those of the Ontario Land Corporation. Furthermore, the Ministry of Natural Resources has started to sell crown lands where formerly it had been adhering to a policy of giving only a lease. Under the former policy, several thousand leases were granted. Many of these were for cottage lots on which the lessee borrowed to build a cottage by putting a mortgage on the lease. Now that it is possible to buy the property rather than merely leasing it, many lessees of crown land are seeking to buy. It is important, therefore, that section 37 be amended again so that the existing rights and responsibilities of all parties be preserved in situations where the lessor and grantor is the Ontario Land Corporation, or the crown, under the Mining Act or the Public Lands Act.

The section now provides that where a person who leases land from the Ontario Land Corporation buys the land, the mortgages already registered against the land remain unaffected; that is the doctrine of merger does not take effect.

Basically, the section is being amended so mortgages on land purchased by a lessee from the Ontario Land Corporation, or from the Ministry of Natural Resources, also remain unaffected. The amendments have been requested by both the Ministry of Housing and by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting and pleasant legal point the minister has reviewed. I would think that he has certainly become learned in the law as far as the details of this particular item are concerned, so that the encumbrances that are registered against a property do, in fact, continue after the technical transfer of tide where the property was originally leased.

The point seems to be a reasonable one and I think that the bill will obviously proceed through the House, but apparently not until the member for Lakeshore has reviewed, in even greater detail, the finer points of conveyancing.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know about that. But having attended at the Gauguin exhibit, conducted by a certain McMurtry I believe, at the American Embassy, very closely resembling the best works of Toulouse-Lautrec in his decadent period, I thought maybe a word or two should be said about the Conveyancing and Law of Property Amendment Act.

No one is concerned, Mr. Speaker, about mortgages of leases or second mortgages of leases if there exists such a strange entity. What I was concerned about when I read the legislation was the transference, “subject to any interest” as the wording goes, of a lease -- hold interest into a freehold interest -- absolute title -- and what that just might mean, in legal terms. I phoned the department about it, and as is normal gleaned a certain amount of, I suppose you’d call it wisdom, with respect to the thing. I was told about mortgages I know all about that, but that’s not the problem.

With respect to cottage properties and things like that there are numerous easements of various kinds, some which follow leasehold interests as such, but it would seem to me in law -- and I’m going to be very ticklish about this -- in terms of freehold interest they may not be recognized.

[8:30]

One instance immediately occurred to me. It was well water. In many instances, the well was located on the particular property. In order to gain water for the cottage property in question, it is necessary to trespass, except if you have an casement -- “come on and take it,” for instance. Is that particular kind of right taken into cognizance in lifting from one form of holding of land which is quite different from fee simple holding of land? Does that follow over of necessity by way of an easement? Is that the kind of easement that is involved?

Then I went further. Suppose that particular kind of thing is encompassed within the legislation; is there a range of kinds of encumbrances -- not mortgages or trespass on land in order to obtain water, and not strictly property rights having to do with an immediate attachment to land which is peculiar to leasehold interests, as one can well imagine they might be, but rather a range of rights with respect to lateral easements, the location of television aerials, the right to light -- rights of various kinds which, traditionally and within English common law, do not come across in terms of the fee simple?

If there are, the minister is saying they do follow. I think he is saying that. Or does he mean that? Really, what does he mean? Has he defined it? Has he really thought about this transfer of property? He may answer me that on previous occasions a similar act of the Legislature went through with respect to the transfer of leasehold interests to freehold and nobody questioned it. That is neither here nor there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It has worked for four years.

Mr. Lawlor: Perhaps we have a little more time now. Perhaps the minister has directed our attention to the particular issue in question. In any event, I thought I would tickle his left rib before I sat down.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why my left?

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, it may not have been particularly clear to the minister, but he can indeed interpret the remarks of my colleague from Lakeshore as being nothing short of total support for this bill on second reading. He was, of course, a member of the happy assembly that did bring in the current section 37.

As I read it, the change has simply lifted the words “with the Ontario Housing Corporation” and set in the new set of words which will, in addition, expand it to the Ontario Land Corporation and to the crown under the Mining Act and the Public Lands Act. That is simply a recognition of the second-home situation, by and large.

In that particular sense, the comments made by the member for Lakeshore should be looked at carefully by the minister and his staff, particularly the situation which applies with respect to an Ontario Housing Corporation development. It may well be quite different from the kinds of odd situations one runs into when dealing with cottages, second homes and legalities that are less clear than one might find in some of the urban housing developments.

That said, however, we will be supporting the bill on second reading.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, could I ask one question of the minister? This may avoid us having to go to committee and follows the point raised by the member for Lakeshore.

Am I not correct in saying that any easements such as were referred to, for wells or whatever, that might have developed by prescription over a period of time would be continuing in any event and would not be affected in any way by this particular item?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. The only reason there is an amendment here is the Ontario Housing Corporation, which is three words, had transferred its leasehold to the Ontario Land Corporation. Therefore, in order to protect the mortgagees, we are changing the words in section 37 of this act.

Secondly, there is the recognition that what was once the Department of Landis and Forests, latterly the Ministry of Natural Resources, under one of two acts is selling cottage lots rather than leasing them as had been done traditionally; all we are doing is putting that in there.

Mr. Lawlor: What about water rights?

Hon. Mr. Drea: All of the encumbrances and so forth are already included. There is provision for them within the existing act. That act has been there for four years.

Bear in mind there was no specific mention in the past of crown lands because four years ago there was not much in the way of sales. But there have been sales over the last little while. There has been no problem. There hasn’t been a dispute which couldn’t be settled in terms of the normal encumbrances or clearances or easements at the time of purchase. This is a very technical piece of housekeeping. It just recognizes the transfer of a procedure from one part of one ministry to another and the policy of another ministry now selling lots rather than leasing. I would think the ordinary procedures under conveyancing would be quite adequate. What we are specifically after here is the protection of the mortgagee where there has been a leasehold.

Mr. Lawlor: That is a shocking complacency on your part.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to say that I was at the great art exhibit too. I was there much earlier than the honourable member because I did my duty and came back here to vote in private members’ hour.

Mr. Lawlor: Even before.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes; and you started off with this. I can assure you I had a most pleasant evening earlier; I was back in the jail system and nobody eats better than those in the sentenced institutions of this province.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can assure members there is nothing untoward in this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Audit Act.

Mr. Renwick: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister has given consideration to Bill 66 on the Notice Paper, standing in the name of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). Perhaps he would take a moment to look up Bill 66? That is the bill which refers to an Act to Acquire the Assets of Inco Limited.

The minister will note, of course, that it makes provision for the Ontario Nickel Corporation. Assuming as I do, that in the course of this Parliament the government will see the wisdom of the bill standing in my colleague’s name and decide to adopt it as a government bill, would the minister please, in the course of his response on second reading to the bill, indicate whether or not it would be affected by the Crown Agency Act? Would he treat it, for example, in the same manner as the Ontario Hydro-electric Power Commission is treated, that is it’s not affected by the Crown Agency Act? On the other hand, would he want to have it audited by the auditor under the Audit Act of 1977? That’s the first point that I think is of concern to all of the members of the assembly.

The second matter is that I would like the minister, if he would for the record, to delineate or name the particular crown agencies which are not affected by the Crown Agency Act so we’ll understand the full import of the amendment which he proposes. I think if the minister could reply to those two comments of mine it may not be necessary to put the bill into committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. Breithaupt: Not after that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. F. S. Miller: What amazed me, Mr. Speaker, is the absolute sincerity with which the honourable member was able to deliver those words, I must say his acting ability is greater than mine.

Mr. Lawlor: You are far more at home in the jail system than anywhere else.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh no, that is not so.

Mr. Breithaupt: He can just keep a straight face.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I defer to it completely. I’ve never been able to keep a straight face, because I’m a straight character; I never had to worry about that problem. The fact is I will give this solemn undertaking to the member. Should Bill 66 pass this House, I will gladly exempt it from the conditions of this and set it up as we have the other exemptions so it would have its own auditors. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I was hoping that would be your position. That is very wise.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s the kind of reassurance the honourable member wanted from me, so when we nationalize Inco, and I’m sure the member would find our government completely in favour with that bill, we would be able to set up a crown corporation that would be audited by independent auditors. Is that clear enough?

Mr. Renwick: That’s the first positive statement I have heard from the Treasurer about the government’s intentions. My colleague will be delighted.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The other two agencies which are still not covered by this amendment are the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation under its act, and the Ontario Energy Corporation under its act. In their acts, as with Hydro, specific exemption is given to those two corporations. I understand it was at the request of the provincial auditor that this be so.

Mr. Renwick: If the minister would permit just one question, it would not be necessary to put it into committee. Does the minister know who the auditors are of those two corporations?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will give the undertaking to put it on the record.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT REPEAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Agricultural Development Repeal Act, 1973.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would say this is a historic occasion. I would think particularly the two lawyers in the front row of the NDP should appreciate the nature of this particular bill. Let me read the title of it to you. Even I, uneducated, unschooled in the law, can recognize something is different about this bill.

Mr. Epp: But you sold a lot of Edsels.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I didn’t sell Edsels, I sold things that had resale value.

Mr. Breithaupt: He bought them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I bought them from those who had bought the lemons.

Let’s look at the full title: An Act to Amend the Agricultural Development Repeal Act, 1973. Do you realize that in the history of this Legislature we have never, in so far as we can find, amended a repeal act?

[8:45]

The purpose of this act is simple. There is still a requirement for mortgages that are registered against any loans or advances made under the original Agricultural Development Act to be processed -- and about 25 a year are, even though they have been paid off long ago. But in the spirit of deregulation we simply felt that since no debts are owed to the crown, this was imposing one more hurdle for people trying to clear title, taking a good deal of time and a good deal of cost. Therefore we felt we should clearly, in this amendment, discharge any mortgages that remain under this act so there is no need for lawyers in the future to come to the crown, to the Treasurer specifically, and get the repeal.

I looked into the history of the act and learned that these moneys were given out by the settlers’ loan commissioner and the commissioner of agricultural loans. They were loans of cash and kind, seed grain, made to thousands of farmers who were settling in Ontario many years ago. I thought it was kind of fun to look back into the history of the act.

Mr. Lawlor: How long ago?

Hon. F. S. Miller: About the time you got elected.

Mr. Riddell: I am indeed humble that the finance critic for the Liberal Party has asked me to make a few comments on this very far-reaching and important bill. As the minister has implied, Bill 33 is simply introducing a minor housekeeping change, which makes a great deal of sense. We in this party certainly support it.

Under the Agricultural Development Act loans were made to farmers, as the minister has already indicated, to help them make improvements on their land and to help them with their farming operation. These loans were made over 30 years ago and have been completely paid off, but not necessarily discharged from the title of the land. When a loan was made, it was registered against the title, and in the transfer of land the new owner would find the previous owner did not register the discharge of the loan. When they found that a mortgage was registered against the title to the land they were purchasing, the lawyers would of course be involved and they would be writing to the ministry to have the loan discharged. This incurred an added expense to the purchaser, and it involved a lot of paperwork for the ministry to discharge the loan.

Where there are mortgages on titles the main effect of the amendment is to clear all titles of mortgages registered against them. This relieves the ministry of having to sign a release of mortgage which has long been liquidated. All mortgages on title, therefore, would be deemed to be discharged, leaving the land with a clear title in this respect.

I am surprised it has taken the government this long to realize that an unnecessary expense could have been alleviated some years ago. It has only been within relatively recent times that this government has been concerned about curbing its wild spending habits, and this is just another example of its mismanagement. However this is understandable, I suppose, considering the calibre of people directing the affairs of this province.

Earlier this week, I asked one of the ministers, who I thought should be knowledgeable about the act -- and I won’t mention any names -- to explain the amendment to me. He indicated the intent of the amendment was to repeal that section of the bill which permitted urban dwellers during the time of war to use vacant lots to grow victory gardens. I said, “You have got to be kidding.” He said, “No, I am not. There is the Treasurer sitting right there. Find out if that isn’t the fact.” I wasn’t too sure I would get much more assistance from the Treasurer, so I just forgot about it and contacted some of the ministry officials to see what it was all about.

I certainly question the minister’s understanding of the bill, but when I observed his sincerity and learned later what the bill was all about, it simply confirmed my lack of faith in a couple of the ministers over there in the job they are doing.

Mr. Renwick: I am glad to have the explanation which was given by the critic of the Liberal Party. That has helped me immensely. As a matter of fact, it was a predecessor of this party, if my memory serves me correctly, the farmers’ party, which passed this act originally. It was repealed in 1973, and there has been a close connection between this party and the farmers of Ontario ever since.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am stunned.

Mr. Renwick: I hope the honourable members noticed that the Treasurer nodded in agreement that it was passed by the farmers’ party in the aftermath of the First World War. I consulted my colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) with respect to the repeal. He indicated it appeared to be consistent with Tory policy to be against agricultural development in this province and therefore there was little if anything we could do about the bill. He suggested that, since it is so consistent with Tory philosophy, we should support the bill at this time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh, my goodness.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question or two with respect to some of the items which I have heard so far this evening on this bill. I will not refer back to the United Farmers of Ontario at this point, but the one thing that did strike me was the comments earlier on with respect to the learned legal abilities of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). I find he is even upstaged by my colleague from Huron-Middlesex, who has given a most illuminating comment with respect to this legislation.

However, I wonder if the Treasurer can advise us how many of these documents are thought to be outstanding. Also, is it the intention to have the various registrars search through their documentation to rule out documents that can now be otherwise ruled out, or is it the intention of the minister, when asked for a discharge in future, simply to cite this act as the authority and not have to provide one? I presume the latter would be the case.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to let the opposition have the opportunity to stand up and clobber us, even if it is with a minor amendment like this. I would have felt badly had they not done anything else.

I would like to say the members opposite had a very succinct summary of my act; I wish I had had it for my ministerial statement. But over here we do things from our heads and not from a piece of paper; so we have to just stand up and --

Mr. Breithaupt: No wonder it comes out that way.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is why it comes out slightly like that; it follows the passages of my head.

We have around 25 requests a year for discharge. But we do not have any measure of the number of them existing around the province. I understand citing the act would be all that was required for the discharge.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FIRES EXTINGUISHMENT REPEAL ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 43, An Act to repeal the Fires Extinguishment Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of this hill, and of the two following bills, to repeal three hills which in our opinion are obsolete and unnecessary pieces of legislation. The government has consulted the municipal liaison committee on these bills, and the MLC has indicated it has no objection to their repeal.

Mr. Lawlor: This suits the honourable member. He is called the sunset member.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this is part of a policy of the ministry and the government, as seen by the last bill introduced by the Treasurer to review certain legislation and to repeal those acts we feel are redundant.

I speak specifically to Bill 43, An Act to repeal the Fires Extinguishment Act. This act was first enacted in 1890 to provide means of extinguishing forest fires. It was re-enacted in 1913 under its present title. It enables county councils to authorize fire guardians, fence viewers, overseers of highways or pathmasters appointed by township councils to order the male residents of a township to help fight a forest fire.

Section 376, paragraph 7, of the Municipal Act now authorizes the reeve, the deputy reeve or, in their absence, any member of township council to call out male residents of a township to fight a forest fire. Moreover, in fire regions designated under the Forest Fires Prevention Act, officers appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources “may employ or summon the assistance of any male persons between the ages of 18 and 60 years” for fighting forest fires.

As a result, this other legislation, the Fires Extinguishment Act, is clearly redundant.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to rise and speak to this hill and in the spirit of accommodation I will indicate that we will obviously support the repeal of this act. The simple reason is that it is adequately covered in the Municipal Act. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, the latter pretty well meets all the conditions that are necessary.

The only question I have is why it has taken so long to repeal this particular act.

I would have thought that when the relevant section was entered into the Municipal Act, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can indicate when that was done -- on page 227 of the Municipal Act -- it would be interesting to have on the record whether it was 110, 15, 29 years ago, or whatever the length of time was.

Since we support the sunset principle first raised in this House by my leader, Dr. Smith, and the government later set up a committee under the Hon. Doug Wiseman to study the sunset law provision --

Mr. Lawlor: Sunset law has been around since Adam.

Mr. Epp: I’m sorry, I wasn’t around when Adam was around to know that he had mentioned it.

Mr. Lawlor: To credit your leader with sunset law is absurd. You’ve got Rotenberg saying it.

Mr. Epp: I think the honourable member has got sunset mixed up with moonshine.

Nevertheless, it is important that the government repeal a number of acts. I am sure there must be hundreds of other acts in force that need repealing simply because they are no longer necessary -- they are redundant.

We support this and look forward to the repeal of many other acts that are no longer necessary.

Mr. Swart: We accept the reasons given by the parliamentary assistant for the repeal of this act. To spend much time discussing the repeal would give some reason for considering some amendments to the rules of this House, because the act is so redundant.

However, my colleague from Riverdale pointed out another reason we strongly support the repeal of this act, and that is because it is a sexist act. It applies only to males. The act as it exists now does not provide for the calling of females to fight forest fires. For that reason, too, we are in favour of repeal of the act.

This act is actually a bit broader than the other legislation we now have, but it is totally out of date in dealing with the situation that exists today.

So of course we will be supporting this bill.

[9:00]

Mr. Bounsall: On close examination of the bill though, repealing the Fires Extinguishment Act does not improve the sexist situation in Ontario. Reading the explanatory note paragraph is that we already have this covered in that a “reeve or a deputy reeve or, in their absence, a member of the township council,” under paragraph 7 of section 376 of the Municipal Act, is authorized “to call out male inhabitants of the township to fight forest fires,” So what we have in the repeal of the Fires Extinguishment Act which is only reasonable when it is covered in one other form, does not remove the sexist connotations where only males may be allowed under the Municipal Act to be called to fight forest fires.

Under section 7 of the Forest Fires Prevention Act, “officers appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources may summon any male person of 18 years” or over,

My party, with its interest in equality and women’s rights, does not suggest that any woman would be any more delighted than males are to be pressed into fighting forest fires against their will -- but again, it still allows the summoning out of males only. I would think that the ministry when repealing the Fires Extinguishment Act, which is redundant in the light of the other two sections, would clean up these two sections so that it would simply read that the reeve or deputy reeve under the Municipal Act could call a person out and, under the Forest Fires Prevention Act, the officers of the Ministry of Natural Resources may summon a person of 18 years of age to 60 years of age to assist in fighting forest fires. That would simply be “a person.” If they take this opportunity to repeal this act, which is reasonable, they should change those two sections under the other two acts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member is really straying from this particular act which is before us.

Mr. Bounsall: The reason for the withdrawal of this act is that it’s covered under two other acts. In my opinion, those two other sections remain sexist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But those two other acts are not before us.

Mr. Bounsall: The only reason this bill is before us, Mr. Speaker, is that those sections of those other two acts exist. They’re sexist and the government should have taken this opportunity to amend them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in this debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I note the question of the member for Waterloo North as to when section 376 was put in the Municipal Act. I’m sorry, I do not have the answer for him but I will get it and send it to him at the appropriate time.

He also asked why it took so long to repeal the act. Speaking personally, I’ve only been the parliamentary assistant for two months so what went on before that I don’t know, but as I indicated earlier, there has been a policy of the government to review legislation that has not been too long a policy and I hope there will be more of these repeals coming forward.

As to the alleged sexist part of this act, Mr. Speaker, that situation isn’t changing as between the present legislation and the ones that have been enacted recently to replace it. However, as far as the Municipal Act is concerned, there is an ongoing review of that act and when we get to that section I can assure the member for Windsor-Sandwich that we will review as to whether or not it is sexist and to whether or not we should change “male” to “person.” That will be reviewed. What the result of the review will be, I don’t know, but as he has raised it” certainly, the ministry will review it.

As far as the other act is concerned, that comes under the Ministry of Natural Resources. I’m sure someone from that ministry will note the debate tonight and, also, in their wisdom and at the proper time, make the review, With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we pass second reading of Bill 43.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

VACANT LAND CULTIVATION REPEAL ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 44, An Act to repeal the Vacant Land Cultivation Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this act was enacted first in 1918 and authorizes the councils of local municipalities to grant permits “to any persons to enter upon, hold and use any vacant land in a municipality” for cultivation and raising crops. However, before issuing a permit, the council is required to hear the objections of the owner and cannot issue a permit if the owner satisfies council that the land is required during the current year for building or manufacturing or other revenue-producing purposes. If a permit is issued, no compensation can be paid to the owner of the land.

This statute was enacted during the end of the First World War when so many Canadians were returning home from Europe. However, the provisions would appear to be rather excessive in present day circumstances and would seem to constitute undue infringement on individual property rights. I should mention that the repeal of this bill will in no way interfere with the present ability of municipal councils to continue to lease public lands to urban residents for use as garden plots.

For these reasons I would ask the House to adopt Bill 44.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is good reason for this particular act to be repealed and we obviously support what the parliamentary assistant to the minister has said. I think he has articulated quite well why this is being done and it doesn’t deserve any further comment. This kind of measure by the government is wholly endorsed.

Mr. Isaacs: I thank the parliamentary assistant for his comments on this bill because the explanatory note contained within the bill is just about as illuminating as it’s possible not to be. That sort of explanatory note prompted me to investigate the act being repealed a little more carefully than I might have done otherwise -- I guess that’s my suspicious nature -- and I found a very interesting and potentially useful act.

I recognize, as the member for Waterloo North has already mentioned, that the exact provisions of the act may not be appropriate for our current circumstances. But the idea, the concept, of making the maximum possible use of all available land in this province might be something the government should explore a little bit further. In many suburban areas surrounding our major municipalities, there are vast amounts of vacant land being held, presumably, for future development. In the case of some of these areas, that future development may be many, many years away.

The present municipal tax structure and the present ability municipalities have to order cleanups of that land and to encourage the use of the land for useful purposes really don’t seem to be too effective. I think it’s a pity that people were not perhaps as aware as they might have been of the Vacant Land Cultivation Act during recent years, because I suspect that if people had been aware of its provisions there might well have been more applications to local councils to take advantage of it.

Be that as it may, as I indicated, my feeling is that the exact provisions of the act, the matter of licensing for $1, the matter of advertising and giving notice to the owner of the land, may not be entirely appropriate for our current circumstances, and therefore, we will not be opposing this Act to repeal the Vacant Land Cultivation Act.

Mr. Swart: I would like to rise and say that I am in full accord with the comments made by my colleague from Wentworth and point out, as he has done but perhaps in a little different way, that the government of 1918 was really even more progressive, more concerned about the utilization of our farm land than the present government some 61 years later. The present government hasn’t even taken the necessary steps to preserve our prime agricultural land in this province, let alone assure that it is going to be used for agricultural purposes.

We recognize this bill we are repealing applies to a different age and that largely it was for the purposes of keeping weeds down and the cultivation of land owned by nonresident owners who didn’t come to the land during the spring and summer to destroy the weeds. There was poor communication in those days and the best alternative was to allow somebody else to utilize that land. As this communications situation no longer exists, I think we have gone past the need to authorize a public body like a municipality to give permission to one person to use somebody else’s land.

I guess we support the repeal of this, partly because at this time it is appropriate so to do. But I am convinced that not too far down the mad, in 10 or 20 years, we are going to have the exact same concern for the utilization of every hectare of land in our country for the growing of food that the government had when it enacted this legislation in 1918. We are going to be paying the price in our society for not taking the necessary action to preserve and utilize that food land.

The previous legislation was an ineffective, inappropriate way of seeing that our prime food land is used for producing food, but we recognize there is a need for the kind of legislation which some thoughtful government like the NDP government in British Columbia enacted for preserving food land for this and future generations.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FIRE GUARDIANS REPEAL ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 45, An Act to repeal the Fire Guardians Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: The reason for this bill and the repeal are pretty well set out in the explanatory note and I would just like to put them into the record.

The Fire Guardians Act, which was enacted in 1889, enables township councils to appoint fire guardians whose responsibility it is to regulate the setting of open air fires in the township between April 1 and October 31. However, under section 354(1), paragraphs 25 to 45 of tie Municipal Act, the councils of all local municipalities have extensive powers respecting fire matters. These include the authority under paragraph 29 to pass bylaws regulating open-air fires and, under paragraph 41, to employ officers to enforce such bylaws.

These broader powers in the Municipal Act make the provisions of the Fire Guardians Act redundant and therefore I would commend this bill to the House.

[9:15]

Mr. Epp: It would be somewhat repetitious to go over the same points I raised in the other one, so I will indicate we will support this bill in principle and endorse the government’s trend toward getting rid of unnecessary legislation.

Mr. Swart: For obvious reasons, we support this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to revise The Line Fences Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill will receive as quick a passage as the previous three which we just put through the House.

In 1793, the first provincial parliament of Upper Canada, meeting at Niagara, passed an act providing for the appointment of persons to serve as fence viewers in every parish, township, reputed township or place. Acts were subsequently passed in 1834, 1845, 1859, 1868, and 1874, respecting line fences and the resolution of disputes involving them. Finally in 1918, the 1874 act was re-enacted under its present name of the Line Fences Act. This statute has remained more or less the same since then.

For some time, there has been general agreement that the act should be revised to make it better able to deal with present day circumstances. To this end, lengthy discussions have taken place with a number of interested parties over the last few years, including interested citizens, representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association; and urban municipalities such as the city of Toronto and the borough of Scarborough. I am pleased to report there is general agreement on most of the issues and agreement by most parties on all of the issues.

There are three main objectives in revising the act. The first is to make the procedure for settling fence disputes between adjoining owners somewhat quicker. This is especially important in agricultural areas in the spring when one of the owners needs a line fence repaired before he can turn out his livestock. The second objective is to make the procedure simpler and more informal for property owners who want a dispute arbitrated. This will be accomplished by making municipalities responsible for administering the arbitration and by keeping disputes, as much as possible, out of the courts. The third objective is to make the legislation more flexible by giving wider discretion to the local fence viewers in making their awards. This will enable them to consider all of the relevant factors involved in a situation whether in a rural or urban area or in an agricultural or non-agricultural setting.

The first draft revising this act, Bill 135, was introduced last year on June 22. It was then widely circulated and a great many comments were received. Bill 201 replaced Bill 185 and was given first reading December 8, 1978. It incorporated a number of the recommendations that were received. In addition, some sections were reworded in an attempt to make their provisions clearer. The sequence of others was rearranged to provide a more logical structure of the bill. With only minor revisions, Bill 201 of last year is incorporated in the present Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to very briefly summarize the changes in Bill 17 from the present Line Fences Act. Firstly, a line fence will no longer be mandatory in every case, but only when one adjoining owner wants one, in which case he may construct a fence on the boundary line. I would stress that if one owner wants a fence and the other does not, there shall be a fence.

The distinction between occupied and unoccupied land is being removed.

Although this act generally will not extend to unorganized territory, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is being empowered to make regulations in dealing with disputes in such territories. In addition, provision is being made for disputes where one owner’s land is in a municipality and the adjoining owner’s land is in unorganized territory.

Municipalities will be required to appoint a sufficient number of fence viewers and to fix their per diem rate. When an owner wishes the fence viewer to arbitrate, he will simply notify the municipal clerk, rather than the present circumstances where he has to arrange the thing himself, contact all the fence viewers and the adjoining owner.

The options of the fence viewers in making their awards under this new act are being clarified and broadened. The appeal of either owner from the fence viewer’s award will now be to the small claims court rather than to the county or district court, in which case we hope the procedure will be much quicker.

An owner in the process of constructing a fence, pursuant to an award, will be able to enter on to the adjoining land to the extent necessary to do the work. If one owner fails to obey the award and the other owner does the work and wants to recover the value of the work, he will have the fence viewers reconvene to certify the amount owed him by the defaulting owner rather than having to take his action to the small claims court.

In addition to the methods in the existing act for collecting the amount owed him by the defaulting owner, the other owner will be able, if the municipal council so decides by bylaw, to collect the amount immediately from the municipal treasurer, and the municipality will then collect the amounts from the defaulting owner as taxes, with interest.

These are the main features of the new legislation, as distinguished from the present Line Fences Act. Of course, we will be dealing with details of the various clauses as the points are raised, if points are raised by other members of the Legislature, when we deal with the bill clause by clause in the committee of the whole House.

I would indicate that I will be placing two amendments to the bill when we are in committee of the whole House, and I have given copies of both of these amendments to the opposition members.

I would ask the Legislature to support this bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, the Line Fences Act has had a considerable amount of discussion over the past year and a half or two. It was introduced on June 22, 1978, and prior to that there was a lot of discussion.

We commend the government, obviously, for the discussions they have had, both with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, and specifically with Mr. Donald Rodgers, the association’s secretary-treasurer, who has been a tower of strength in trying to suggest a number of very important amendments to this bill, some of which the government has obviously adopted and others which it has, discreetly or indiscreetly, rejected.

In particular, I want to draw attention to a gentleman from Lindsay, Reeve Don McCumber of Emily township, in Victoria county, who spearheaded a special evening at Sir Sandford Fleming College in Lindsay, to discuss the pros and cons of Bill 17. Mr. McCumber, at his great inconvenience, arranged a meeting which about 100 people attended, and the ministry officials tell me that this was one of the best attended and most productive meetings that they had on this particular subject.

I knew you would be glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that our citizens be recognized when they make important contributions to bills. It is important that we single out people like Reeve McCumber. There was no need for him to do this, there was no great pressure on him to do it; nevertheless, at his great inconvenience, he arranged this meeting and, as a result, important amendments were made which the ministry personnel were appreciative of receiving.

In the future I hope that other people will come forward and take active roles of this nature so that the Legislature can benefit by their contributions.

There is an interesting account, I think in Municipal World, given by the editor, Mr. Michael Smithers. He first gave it in 1971, and then at the request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture he repeated it in a later issue. It is a history of line fences. He has indicated that the story of line fences goes back to the Dark Ages when they had ordinary fences, dividing walls, stockades, hedges, stone fences, wooden fences, wire fences, stumps, concrete, turf and what he calls “ridiculous looking but economical and efficient electric fences today.”

So even in the olden days, as we sometimes call them -- sometimes the good old days -- people had a lot of quarrels and disputes and arguments and disagreements. Something had to be done to try to reduce them, so I suppose they built fences in order to contain their own vigorous energies from boiling over and getting carried away over disputes with their neighbours.

We note that at one time -- before 1834 -- the fence viewers were elected at town meetings, so the whole populace had an opportunity to share in electing the fence viewers. That came up in 1834 when new legislation was passed. Their criterion for choosing these fence viewers at public meetings, to quote Mr. Smithers, was that they had to be “fit and discreet persons to serve the office of fence viewers.” I am not sure in which way they had to be fit, whether they had to be physically fit, mentally fit or in some other way. Nevertheless, that is the way they describe them, without having defined the terms.

Mrs. Campbell will appreciate this; I do not recall they said they had to be male.

Mrs. Campbell: That was a foregone conclusion. It still is.

Mr. Epp: Maybe they have more foresight than hindsight, I am not sure.

Anyway, an account of a decision that a Mr. Justice J. McEvoy made at that time is as follows: “The need for fence viewers arose from the fact that disputes were constantly arising about line fences, i.e., fences which separated one man’s land from the farm lying adjacent to it. When one settler had fenced his farm on four sides, the next settler came, and by fencing his farm on three sides and adjoining his fence to that of his neighbour, he was quite as well off as the first settler although he had done only three quarters of the amount of work. It became the province of the fence viewers to say what amount the new man should pay for being allowed to use his neighbour’s fence.”

After a while they felt it was very difficult to assess the amount of money that the original settler had paid for that one side that was now benefiting his new neighbour, so this particular statute was amended by saying that the new farmer did not have to bother paying the original cost but only had to pay his share of the upkeep of the joint fence.

One of the questions that always arises when discussing lands is whether crown lands should be included, or whether they in fact are included. The Interpretation Act tells us that if the crown lands are not expressly stated as being included in the act, then they are excluded. So later on I will be introducing a few amendments, specifically a new section 24 which will exclude some of the crown lands but will include others in sections 22 and 23.

We are told that fence viewers will have to consider what constitutes a lawful fence and in doing so they must take into consideration statutory provisions, municipal bylaws, type and location of the fence in question, and all kinds of precedents and other things. Obviously, we will need very able and knowledgeable people in this field who have important tasks to perform.

[9:30]

In reviewing some early decisions we find that the judges have made a number of decisions regarding the fence viewers’ earlier interpretations and decisions. In Caledon township a Squire McLaughlin back in the 1800s ruled that a brush fence -- that is a fence made of brush, logs and rocks and so on -- to be legal must be “40 feet wide and damned high.” Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t use that word unless it was written here as used by the squire 100 years ago.

Someone else defined a suitable fence as being “horse high, bull strong and skunk tight.” Obviously in those times they required things other than we do.

The important aspects of this legislation must be to define the problem and try to resolve it through a process which is relatively simple and fair to all parties concerned. If the problem persists, as it often does, there has to be some kind of appeal process, and this bill permits that process.

I believe this legislation does just that. It is fair, and it provides for a course that persons appointed as fence viewers can follow. If they exercise the wisdom of Solomon, the concern and the humanity of Albert Schweitzer, and the determination of Abraham Lincoln, I am sure we are going to have very good decisions in the future.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that is before us, although we have some reservations. Certainly the bill itself is a major move forward in the matter of establishing and dividing the cost of line fences among the owners of the land. But it falls really far short of solving all the problems.

I think we all recognize in this House that to farmers this is a major bill. It may be that a large part of the population of this province is not particularly concerned about this bill, but to the farmers it is a very important matter. Therefore, I think it deserves some very close consideration.

In spite of that, it is rather a simple bill and I quite frankly wonder why it took the government so long to get to this point of having the bill before us. Secondly, I wonder why they didn’t go a bit further and meet some of the other requests of the farmers and rural municipalities.

For instance, the improvements which have been made in this bill were made only after repeated pressure from the farm organizations and the rural municipalities. The government just seemed reluctant to make any changes in the old act, as much as those changes were needed. This, as we all know, is the third of the bills brought in to revise the Line Fences Act. In fact, it does a bit more than revise the Line Fences Act, it actually replaces it. It is a whole new act.

Even though the government says that the consultations had gone on for months, and even years, the first bill which was brought in, Bill 135, met very few of the requests of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in November 1978, after the second bill came in. In it, they pointed out that long process that took place. They said: “After many years of discussion and negotiation between the federation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, ROMA and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the position was reached during 1978 whereby it was agreed that most of the recommendations of the federation would be implemented in the new act, save for highway and road fences which would be reserved for treatment under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Subsequent to these discussions and agreement, Bill 135 was produced and presented for implementation in the Legislature.”

It goes on to say they were “requested by the previous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Darcy McKeough, to provide comments regarding the current Bill 135 and the following are detailed comments framed in light of longstanding basic principles regarding line fences and legislation pertaining to them. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture recommends as follows ...”

Then it goes on to all the principles which they had put forward with regard to the Line Fences Act and which had not been adopted by the government in Bill 135. As a result of that, Bill 201 was brought in, which incorporated some of those changes. Then the present Bill 17, which we have before us, incorporated a few more of those requests but, as the parliamentary assistant well recognizes, it still hasn’t met the requests of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I recognize there is some difference in viewpoint, perhaps slight, between the rural municipalities and the federation of agriculture, but where there has been that difference, they have come down on the side of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association rather than the side of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture pointed out that the basic principles underlining the federation’s recommendations were first that line fences should only be constructed where there is a demonstrated need. The first bill brought in, Bill 135, made line fences mandatory, but that, of course, has now been changed.

They went on to say: “Another basic principle is that all lands, regardless of the category of the owner, should be subject to the provision of revised Line Fences Act, and this would include the crown and the crown agencies.” That was one of their basic principles. That is excluded from even the act we have before us.

They also stated: “Another basic principle is that the Line Fences Act should apply in each and every municipality in the province without reservation.” The present act does not apply. The bill we have before us does not apply to every municipality in this province, so municipalities which have passed the bylaw under the Municipal Act can pull themselves out from under even though that municipality may have a great number of farmers within the municipality.

They stated one further principle: “The government should have the same responsibilities for land as any other landowner and should demonstrate good citizenship by subscribing to Ontario’s Line Fences Act as it affects their own landholdings.” That refers not only to crown land but land owned by municipalities as well. Yet this act before us now does not meet the requests of the federation of agriculture.

I want to deal just briefly with the positive aspects of this act, and there are a substantial number of positive sections in it. It certainly makes a more sensible base for determining where fences shall be constructed; as has already been stated, it does away with the distinction between occupied and unoccupied lands. This was always a sore point: what is occupied land and what is unoccupied land? The only way that could be determined was by the courts. Now it applies to all lands.

Under the former act, line fences must be built between occupied properties, as the parliamentary assistant has pointed out. Now they must be built only if one owner requests them -- one of the two owners or perhaps, in some cases, more than two owners. I would point out that the bill as it is before us is very poorly written in that regard, because it is quite ambiguous.

If the parliamentary assistant will look at section 4 of the bill, it speaks of the procedure whereby one landowner may initiate the necessary procedures for getting a fence. He notifies the clerk of the municipality. Then it goes on to state in section 4(2) that the clerk of the municipality shall notify the other owner in the prescribed form and he shall cause “three fence viewers of the locality to arbitrate in the premises.” Then, if we go on to section 7, we read that the fence viewers “shall” -- note the word “shall” -- “make an award in the prescribed form, signed by any two of them, respecting the matters in dispute and the award shall state that a fence shall be constructed and maintained,” et cetera.

Then, if we go on to section 14, we find out that it is almost totally contradictory to section 7 because it states, in section 14(1):

“Where the fence viewers have attended at premises pursuant to a notice given under section 4(2),” -- that’s where the clerk notifies them to attend -- or certain other sections, and have decided that no award, certificate, or determination with directions as the case may be, shall be made, they shall prepare their decision in the prescribed form.

The bill says on one hand in section 7 that they must make an award; however, in section 14, the bill clearly states that they have the right to decide that no award shall be made. As I said, those two sections are extremely contradictory. That should be clarified by amendments before this bill is given third reading and becomes an act of this Legislature.

It was a big battle for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to get the government to decide that it should be the municipalities that give out these notices. They say good fences make good neighbours. I say it perhaps requires a bit more than that. Good fences make good neighbours, and legislation which provides for fairness in paying for and erecting those fences also makes good neighbours. Under the former act of this Legislature where one farmer had to give notice to the other farmer, it really didn’t make for good neighbours. It should be done through the municipality.

The present bill recognizes that and does that. But with Bill 135, after all the discussions with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, the government brought in a bill that didn’t accomplish that -- in fact, it left it optional so that a municipality may have opted out if it wished not to give such notices. That has been corrected. That is one of the positive things about this new bill.

The new bill also incorporates to a substantial degree the request of the federation of agriculture that the principle be established in the act that there be an equal division of responsibility, both financially and for construction of line fences. However, once again, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is not entirely happy with the act as it is written at present because the federation feels it doesn’t make that as clear as it could. As a result, we will be bringing in an amendment to that section.

[9:45]

The final positive thing in this act is that it does provide, as the parliamentary assistant has stated, for reasonable and speedy appeal procedures -- and that is important -- so that the fence can be erected.

As I have already stated, there are some shortcomings in this act; I mentioned two or three of them: the contradiction between sections 7 and 14, and the principle of the 50-50 split of responsibility not being firm enough. In addition, there is the section which provides for the payment by one owner to the other owner of his share of the construction of the fence. The bill we have before us provides that the clerk shall levy that against the taxes of the property if the owner refuses to pay it. The owner may go to court to collect it, but he may also ask the municipality to assess those costs and levy them in taxes. Those of us who know the Municipal Act will realize that it could be five years before he gets the money out of it. It might even come to a tax sale before he recovers his money.

It is somewhat significant in this bill that when it comes to payment of the judge who sits to hear the appeal, he shall be paid by the municipality. He does not collect from either side. The bill makes sure that the judge gets his money, but the farmer who may have invested several hundreds of dollars in a line fence could wait for six months, a year, two years or five years to get his money.

There has been such a substantial shift of responsibility to the municipalities -- the government has gone so far in other fields in providing that it is a municipal clerk who will give the notices; it is the municipality that will pay the judge -- in fact, in all fields the responsibility rests on the municipality, except in this one.

The bill does provide, of course, that a municipality may pass bylaw whereby it may pay this money immediately over to the fence bureau, but I suggest that is opting out. The minister did that too in the original bill with regard to the notices; the municipality could pass a bylaw stating they did not have to give out the notices. I suggest the minister should have gone all the way on this too and made it reasonable and sensible that, once that levy is put against the property, the municipality should pay that money over to the farmer who has spent it on behalf of the other property owner -- half of it has been spent on behalf of the other property owner.

Another shortcoming of this bill, as already mentioned, is that the Line Fences Act does not apply to lands where a municipality has passed a bylaw under section 354(1) (21) of the Municipal Act. I am sure the parliamentary assistant, who was in municipal government for quite a number of years, will realize that section of the act was passed primarily for urban municipalities. That section of the act permits municipalities to pass bylaws “for prescribing the height and description of lawful fences; for prescribing the height and description of and the manner of maintaining, keeping up and laying down, fences along highways or parts thereof, and for making compensation for the increased expenses, if any, to persons required so to maintain, keep up or lay down any such fence; [and] for determining how the cost of division fences shall be apportioned, and for providing that any amount so apportioned shall be recoverable under the Summary Convictions Act, provided that “until a bylaw is passed, the Line Fences Act applies.”

I repeat that this is intended primarily for urban municipalities. That is the purpose of this section of the Municipal Act.

We know that across this province, particularly with regional governments being formed in the last 10 years, there are great numbers of regional municipalities which have an urban core but where the majority of the area within such municipalities is still rural. I could give you the example of St. Catharines where there is a population of 120,000. Of that 120,000, 119,000 are urban and yet there’s a large rural area. The same thing is true of Niagara Falls. The same thing is true of Welland. The same thing is true of Thorold and when we get down to the Ottawa region, or wherever there are regions, this is the situation.

It seems to me if the primary intent of the Line Fences Act is to apply to line fences between agricultural lands, then it should apply to all agricultural lands in the province. We will be moving such an amendment.

Although there is a vague reference in this [act under section 26, and my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will be speaking further on this, which provides that the minister may make regulations which apply to unorganized territories, it just leaves it wide open. It doesn’t provide any procedures at all, It seems to me where farm land exists in the unorganized territories, the principle of this act should apply. In our amendments we will endeavour to bring that about.

The changes I have spoken of, I submit to this Legislature, are desirable, and we intend to see these changes are brought about when this goes to committee. I want to say we put out our amendments some three weeks ago, when we expected this bill would be up rather shortly, and gave them to the two other parties in this House. I'm glad to see the Liberal Party, although they may have changed the wording slightly, have submitted amendments of their own which conform with ours, They agree with at least some of our amendments. Therefore, we can hope for some change.

In the future, on bills for which I have some responsibility, I just want to assure the members on the right, I’m going to do this more often. Perhaps if it gives them time to study them and to look at them closely, they will be supporting more of the policy of the NDP. If they do, that will be very much to their credit.

As I say, we will be supporting this bill in principle and ask that it go to committee of the House where we will be presenting these amendments to make rather a dramatic improvement in the bill, which in itself is an improvement over the old act.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, my purpose is clarification on Bill 17 from the parliamentary assistant, and the member for Welland-Thorold has raised it in regard to urban dwellers. One of the problems a member is often called about is in regard to fences between neighbours in an urban centre or in an urban community. That is a dispute about what type of fence they are going to put up. One may want wire mesh fence, another may want a privacy fence, Is there any procedure that will give the fence viewers a right to make a decision?

The other one could apply either to urban or rural. That is where a surveyor has gone in to a property that has been established for many years by a fence and found the fence is in the wrong place according to the original survey. There is such a thing as possessory rights. I’m wondering, rather than through the courts, is there any route for the fence viewers? Could a board be established to correct this rather than have to go to long civil litigation?

Many times, it happens that a person bought a property years ago without a proper survey. This was quite common. Now it’s more common to have it surveyed before you purchase it. They find the fences anywhere -- one foot, two feet, three feet out of the original boundaries. It’s my understanding that if it has been like that for 10 years, through possessory rights you have the ownership. I would just like clarification of those two issues.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of this bill, and in agreement with my colleague from Welland-Thorold, who has indicated a number of proposed amendments which we will be putting forward when the bill reaches committee stage.

It has been said that farmers know that good fences make good neighbours. I think, unfortunately, this motto has been ignored by many people who have been moving into rural areas over the last few years, especially as many of them are no longer actively farming and these non-farming residents don’t understand the need for good fencing.

There have been problems in my riding where horses have been getting out of their pastures into adjoining properties where farmers have sown crops, and they have ruined the crops and so on. I have come across other situations where non-resident owners of property have let their fences go into disrepair and the adjoining property owner has had a very difficult time in determining who is responsible for maintaining those fences and ensuring that, in such a situation, it isn’t his responsibility if his own livestock are found wandering on the road. Perhaps he could be liable for the expenses that might be incurred if an accident were to happen because his livestock had got out when someone else’s fence had not been repaired.

This bill is very important to the rural area of Algoma and, as a result, during the period of review by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, I have had some contact, over the last few years, with the officials involved with the preparation of the legislation. I especially welcome the fact that the ambiguity over occupied and unoccupied land is dealt with in this bill. That was one of the major problems in determining whether land which was owned privately, but which was not used or not farmed, constituted occupied or unoccupied land, and I think the changes in this bill will deal with that problem.

I hope the ambiguity will no longer he in existence and we will have a situation where people who do not actively use their land will still have some responsibility, or can be shown to have some responsibility for maintaining their fences, So I welcome the change that removes that distinction.

I do question the exemptions that have been proposed for municipalities, school boards and for the provincial government, although I know they could make separate agreements. I welcome the fact that Ontario Hydro will be required to come under the provisions of the act, but if this change could be made in Bill 17 from the previous Bill 135, I wonder why other public institutions could not also have been brought under the regulations of this bill.

There are a couple of other things I was worried about in the previous bill as introduced into the House. For instance, under that bill the financial considerations of the parties involved could be taken into account by the fence viewers in determining the responsibility for the maintenance of the fence or repair of the fence. I know a lot of objections were raised and that has now been removed.

[10:00]

Apparently, however, fence viewers will now be able to take into account other factors. I wonder what that means -- “other factors.” Is that just a euphemism for the pecuniary considerations that were in the previous bill? I wonder what that means, and I hope that can be clarified because that is a pretty wide statement if one can take other factors into account. What happens if it is found under ordinary circumstances that a particular fence is the responsibility of a particular landowner, but because of some other factor it is decided that he should not have to pay for the maintenance or the repair of that fence? That is a very wide thing and I would like that clarified.

My colleague from Welland-Thorold mentioned one of my main concerns in relation to this legislation, because as a northern member I have a large area of my riding which is unorganized municipality. A lot of members, even those from northern Ontario, who come from urban centres do not understand the problems of unorganized territory. Certainly I find that a lot of members in southern Ontario do not understand them. As a matter of fact, many of them do not even know what is meant by the term “unorganized territory.”

A few years ago I wrote to the then minister, the Honourable Darcy McKeough, and pointed out to him that right now under the present law the line-fences regulations cannot be enforced at all in unorganized areas. There just is no provision under the present law fur this kind of treatment of a problem on fences. Why there should be a difference I fail to see. If we have active farmers in unorganized areas they should have the same protections as their friends and neighbours in municipally organized areas.

I pointed that out to him some years ago. At the time, Mr. McKeough wrote back to me and said he was thankful I had pointed out this deficiency in the present law. His officials who were reviewing the legislation and preparing changes would take that into account, this “deficiency” -- that was the word he used -- would be considered as part of that review and it would be dealt with in the new law.

When Bill 135 was introduced into the Legislature it did not have anything about unorganized areas in it. I could not understand that, considering what Mr. McKeough had said previously, so I wrote back and said, “Look, you told me you were going to deal with this and you didn’t.” Subsequently I had conversations with the individuals in the ministry who are preparing the legislation. They said it had been an inadvertent oversight, they certainly were interested in having this legislation apply to unorganized areas and when they introduced the new legislation it would deal with that matter.

They asked me, as a matter of fact, if I could suggest any methods that could be used to have this legislation apply to unorganized areas. In order to get some information on that I wrote to the agricultural committee -- it is called the development committee in Algoma, because after all these years we are still developing agriculture in Algoma. I asked them for some advice. Most of their members are from municipally organized areas but they certainly understood the problems of the unorganized areas. Many of their neighbours are living in unorganized areas. They wrote back and indicated that perhaps the local roads boards could be involved and administer the act in their areas.

I understood why they said that. They wanted to have local people who knew the situation in the area dealing with the problem. However, I doubt that the local roads boards would like to take on that area of responsibility. They are set up specifically to deal with problems of municipal roads in unorganized areas and, really, they have a full-time job at that, as volunteers, So I doubt that they could do it.

I looked at some other examples. I looked at other provincial programs that are administered by municipalities in organized areas and said, “Okay, how do these apply to unorganized areas? I looked at the Ontario Home Renewal Program and found that Ministry of Northern Affairs officers throughout northern Ontario administer that program much as a municipal clerk would administer it in a municipality. So I suggested to the ministry that they might set up a situation where the Northern Affairs officers would go to the local community in the unorganized area to get names for fence viewers and have them appointed. The Northern Affairs officer would carry out the functions of the clerk, and the local people would be able to carry out the functions of the fence viewers.

I suggested that to the ministry. I also suggested that perhaps they could look at the regional school boards, although I anticipated the school board wouldn’t be too interested in doing this. But one never knows -- they carry out the functions of recreation committees and so on that would normally be under municipalities in unorganized areas.

But when we get this bill back, all it says is, under section 2, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations to provide for determining bow the cost of line fences marking the boundary between the land situate in territory without municipal organization shall be apportioned and for providing for the manner in which any amount so apportioned shall be recoverable.”

All that tells me is that they couldn’t figure out how to do it and they were getting a lot of criticism about how long it has taken to have this review. I realize they wanted to get the opinions of the farmers’ organizations and the municipalities, et cetera, before they brought in the final legislations and that has taken a long lime. But they didn’t want to hold it up any more until they could figure out how this bill applied to unorganized areas.

They haven’t figured it out, so they put in this vague comment that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will decide how it is going to be done under regulations. I don’t think that is good enough. I think the farmers of the unorganized areas have a right, when this legislation is proposed, to see how it is going to operate in their area, and not to have it left simply to regulations. How are they going to know whether they agree with what is being proposed if they don’t know what is being proposed?

Obviously the ministry doesn’t know what is being proposed. If they did, they would have put it in the act. Maybe my suggestions weren’t adequate; that is quite possible. Maybe they wouldn’t be workable. Frankly, I don’t see why the Ministry of Northern Affairs can’t get involved. They like to say they are a co-ordinating ministry. Maybe my suggestions are not workable, but why on earth couldn’t the minister come up with something better than this?

As I said, I am supporting this bill. But when it comes to committee, we are going to be suggesting amendments as to how it will operate in unorganized areas. We don’t want it left to regulations. If government can’t figure out how to do it, we can. We are going to be presenting those amendments and we hope the government will accept them. Obviously, it hasn’t been able to figure out how to do it.

Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to participate in this debate on an act to revise the Line Fences Act and to support the bill in principle.

I listened very carefully to the comments made by both the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Algoma. I really think they are living in the past if they suggest that good fences make good neighbours in this day and age. There are many specialized farmers who are going to be very displeased that they are going to put up half a fence to keep in their neighbours’ livestock. I will have more to say about that a little later on. But today good fences will not make good neighbours.

There has been a genuine concern on the part of many farmers, farm organizations and municipal organizations such as ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, about the existing line-fences legislation. There is no question that revisions to the present act were necessary in order to deal with present-day circumstances. The farming industry has become one of specialization, and in those areas where there is concentrated cash-crop farming and livestock farming where the animals are reared in confinement, it can be argued that line fences should only be constructed where there is a demonstrated need.

The current act makes line fences mandatory, whereas the revised act recognizes that line fences are not always needed but provides the means to settle disputes where there is a demonstrated need.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there are a number of other private conversations going on and they are making the member for Huron-Middlesex shout.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right.

Mr. Conway: I thought he was talking to the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

Mr. Riddell: If you can’t get some order in here I’ll break into a chant and I can assure you then that --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Don’t do it, we give up.

Mr. Riddell: A simple and quicker method for settling fencing disputes in both rural and urban areas, and in agricultural and nonagricultural areas was needed, and one that ensures that the interests of each of the adjoining owners are dealt with equitably.

Where adjoining owners cannot reach agreement, one owner may simply notify the clerk of the local municipality that he wants the fence viewers to arbitrate the dispute. The fence viewers will have been appointed by the municipal council by bylaw and, when notified by the clerk, they will examine the premises and if required by either adjoining owner they shall hear evidence and may examine the owners and their witnesses on oath. The fence viewers will make an award respecting the matters in dispute, and the award shall specify what portion of the fence each adjoining owner shall construct, reconstruct or repair as the case may belt is my understanding that the minister has amended the clause which states that the award shall specify that the adjoining owner named shall construct, reconstruct or repair, as the case may be, and maintain and keep up the whole fence. This has been a very contentious issue with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I must agree that the clause is somewhat redundant as the two previous clauses permit the fence viewers to designate whatever portion of the fence each adjoining owner shall construct, reconstruct or repair and maintain as the fence viewers consider just.

There is also a question in my mind whether an owner should be relieved of all responsibility to build or repair or maintain a fence where it was deemed that one was necessary, yet this section of the bill would have given the fence viewers authority to place the entire onus on one of the adjoining landowners.

I’m sure that this section of the act was included as the minister has no doubt received correspondence from farmers throughout Ontario who have specialized farming operations and feel that the need for fencing is greatly reduced. Cash-crop farmers will argue that they do not require fences and there is no question that today most dairy and beef farmers run their operation without the need of fencing as either feedlots are used for beef or confinement to a small five or 10-acre parcel for dairy herds.

The argument that is put forward is that the farmer operating the feedlot or confinement dairy operation has to pay the total cost for housing and equipment necessary to operate his farm. Therefore, if another farmer decides that it is to his benefit to run his cattle over the land, it should be his responsibility to pay the total cost of retaining his animals on his own property by fencing or any other suitable means, and he should not expect to have a portion of his production costs subsidized by his neighbour.

This brings me back to the comment that was made by the two earlier speakers who suggest that good fences are going to make good neighbours. That is simply not the case; I could show them letters that I’ve received from cash-crop farmers who are very much dissatisfied with the bill and the fact that they are going to have to pay towards keeping up a portion of a fence.

The question that arises, of course, is what responsibility does the neighbour assume if he decides to go into cattle after the adjoining landowner built the new fence? This, of course, could be easily resolved by calling in the fence viewers to arbitrate the dispute if necessary so that the neighbour would pay one half of the construction costs. The owner building the original fence could be required to produce the invoices showing the cost of materials, with an added allowance for labour and any equipment utilized, and then a depreciation allowance could be deducted.

Ontario Hydro utilizes a similar formula if a customer has a three-phase hydro line built for his own needs and at some future date a neighbour requires service from the line or Ontario Hydro needs the line extended.

I believe the bill, in its amended form, should allay the fears of those farmers who have specialized and do not need a fence. The fence viewers, I am sure, will take all matters into consideration and apportion the costs to each owner accordingly.

There is an appeal procedure whereby an owner dissatisfied with the award may appeal to a judge of the small claims court for the territory division in which the land is located. The judge shall hear and determine the appeal and may set aside, alter or affirm the award, or correct any error. He may examine the parties and their witnesses on oath and he may inspect the premises and he may order payment of costs by the other party and fix the amount of the costs. The decision of the judge is final and the award as altered or affirmed shall be dealt with in all respect as it would have been if it had not been appealed.

[10:15]

The difficulty may be the appointment of fence viewers, as they will be given a great deal more responsibility when this act is passed than with the original act. Previously the fence viewers could only recommend after surveying the situation, and the municipal council could choose to ignore the recommendation or simply not follow through on the recommendations, which did nothing but frustrate the fence viewers and prolong the dispute between the adjoining land owners. This bill has far more teeth in it and all the necessary ingredients to settle a dispute or at least to ensure that a fence will be built or repaired, even though the landowners may continue to disagree.

Under the proposed new act, the fence viewers will be able to divide responsibilities on a legal basis, which is the tradition in many municipalities. The viewers will also have the option of making one owner responsible for a greater portion of the fence than the other, but the amended section will not permit the viewers to make one owner responsible for the entire fence. Such decisions by the fence viewers will be dependent on the particular circumstances of the two owners involved in the dispute.

The purpose of clearly spelling out the viewers’ options is to make the act more flexible in dealing with the wide variety of modem-day circumstances in both rural and urban areas.

Another concern on the part of landowners and farm organizations is the exemption of land owned by the corporation of a municipality or a local board within the meaning of the Municipal Affairs Act, and crown land or land owned by a crown agency. We intend to amend this section of the act binding on the crown in right of Ontario and on a crown agency within the meaning of the Crown Agency Act.

I understand from the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that he has a number of amendments he is going to be introducing. He suggested that he has sent these amendments to us -- which he did; we had a look at the amendments and I’m going to tell him that many of the amendments we are not going to support. I’m also going to tell him that we had our amendments set down long before he ever thought of making any amendments.

Mr. Swart: Three weeks after.

Mr. Riddell: So he can’t give us that nonsense that by sending amendments over to us he has in any way influenced our decision.

Mr. Roy: He thinks he’s the only one who has an original idea.

Mr. Riddell: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our amendments will no doubt be supported in whole by the New Democratic Party, but some of their amendments are redundant or are about matters adequately covered in the bill, and I am just going to tell them right now that there are many of their amendments we are not going to support, so they may just as well be prepared for that.

Mr. Swart: The federation of agriculture is in support of them.

Mr. Roy: If your amendments were as good as ours, we’d support all of them.

Mr. Swart: You’ll do a flip-flop.

Mr. Riddell: We also intend to amend the act to make it apply to lands other than lands that constitute a public highway owned by a municipality and apply to lands owned by a local board within the meaning of the Municipal Affairs Act. We feel that what is fair for one is fair for the other, and if the crown or a municipality is going to compete with the private landowners in purchasing land, then they should be responsible for their fair portion of the fence. We feel we have an excellent amendment which will cover this, making the crown responsible for no more than 50 per cent of the fence. This, of course, applies to crown land that is patented; as far as unpatented land is concerned we left that alone for the time being.

Mr. Roy: A very sensible amendment.

Mr. Riddell: I know the minister has been made aware of the concern of many farmers about the fencing responsibilities of government and government agencies, and I know the government is reluctant to include lands of provincial and municipal governments as it believes that the potential cost burden to the taxpayers of making all such land subject to the act would be too heavy. I don’t believe this to be the case, considering that lands that constitute a public highway will be exempt.

We are all aware, of course, that provincial legislation cannot be binding on the federal government and the land of the government of Canada and its agencies is therefore exempt. In addition, the fencing responsibilities of the national railway companies are set out in the Canada Railway Mt.

All things considered, I think it is a good bill and I commend the minister for bringing it forward, In developing the legislation, I know the minister has not been able to incorporate every recommendation that was submitted by individuals and organizations. However, the bill does reflect the many agreements and compromises reached during the discussion and I believe it will receive very considerable support from interested residents, municipalities and associations.

I do hope the bill will be passed without further delay, as this is the time of year when farmers endeavour to construct or repair fences in order to retain the livestock which will be let out to pasture, and this will likely take place within the next week or two. It is a bill which is long overdue and I am pleased to see that it has just about reached fruition.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to express some comments on this great bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Of course I wholeheartedly support the comments made by my colleagues, the members for Welland-Thorold and Algoma. I am always amazed by the convoluted manner in which the members on my right seem to find a way of avoiding supporting some amendments which are incredibly sensible and incredibly straightforward proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold.

On the principle of the bill I am concerned first of all about the very simple matter of the title. It seems to me, through reading a number of other acts that relate to fences, and the identification of boundaries between property, that even in this act we generally refer to “fences”; in the Municipal Act we talk about “fences” or “division fences” or “boundary fences,” and there are very few places, even in the act before us now, where we talk about a “line fence.” I wonder how many members of the public, those who are going to be affected by legislation of this kind, realize what a line fence is.

Mr. Roy: He knows.

Mr. Ruston: What is it? Do you know?

Mr. Isaacs: I would have suggested to the parliamentary assistant and to the minister that while they were bringing this ancient and very well-intentioned act up to date, they might have considered very seriously bringing the title up to date so that the general public, the users of this legislation, would find it in simple language and find that it reflected their needs as well as much other legislation in the province.

On the matter of urban areas, I am very pleased that the parliamentary assistant mentioned he had consulted with representatives of urban municipalities. It is a pity, however, that consultation has led to the insertion into this act of the ability for a municipality to avoid completely its responsibility to provide the provisions of the act both to agricultural users and to occupants of residential land.

The problem the member for Welland-Thorold outlined, that of very large municipalities that contain both urban and rural portions, is one that has become increasingly common in this province with the introduction of regional government. In almost every one of those municipalities the urban portion is the controlling portion in terms of votes on the municipal council. It is a great pity the government, in introducing this bill, didn’t recognize that fact and recognize that provisions must be made both for urban residents and for rural residents in terms of the provision of fences, instead of allowing the municipality to annul completely the provisions of this act.

The intent of this act is an excellent one in that arbitration shall be applied in order to keep disputes out of the court. Without going on at great length, I think it a pity the government doesn’t recognize that principle in many other acts, so that we have not only fence viewers -- and that is another archaic term -- but also arbitrators who are able to arbitrate disputes between neighbours whenever those arise and about whatever circumstances those arise.

Our court system, particularly our bylaw court system, is incredibly overloaded with neighbourhood disputes. I think that more acts of this kind would be a very great step forward in terms of solving these disputes in a mutually amicable way.

One last comment, Mr. Speaker. There is a provision in this act that the municipality shall have the right to fix the per diem payments made to the fence viewers. It is an excellent provision, one that is not being recognized by this government in many other areas and I would specifically draw to their attention the matter of fixing fees for applications to committees of adjustment, where the government has consistently not taken action that is being requested by municipalities.

I think we’re in a situation where we need what almost amounts to a bill of rights for municipalities, so that instead of being bound by the incredibly complex provisions of the Municipal Act -- and much other legislation where reference is always having to be made to an act to find out what rights a municipality has -- if we could have a very clear and succinct statement from this government as to the powers of municipal government in Ontario, then we would be making a big step forward and be putting municipal government in the position many municipally elected officials would like to see when they talk about enshrining municipal government in the constitution.

That, to my mind, is not the way to go but I think the principle which underlies that is similar to the one which underlies this bill, as I’ve already mentioned, and one that the government would do very well to take to heap.

I will certainly be supporting the amendments that the member for Welland-Thorold proposes and I hope those members to my right will look at them very seriously and recognize that the act will be a better act if they are approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Grey. Does the honourable member have some lengthy remarks to make regarding this bill or can he complete them in two minutes?

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have been used to revising line fences in a hurry before, so I guess I’ll try to finish in the two minutes that are left.

There are just a couple of points I want to make here. I am glad to see this bill coming in because in the past, if a neighbour wouldn’t fix his fence, there was no way that one could really force him to and recover the costs. This legislation is going to allow you to fix the fence and put the costs on the municipality to collect on its taxes. I think this is good but I also think the bill would be better if the municipality paid the owner who constructed the fence immediately, rather than wait until it is collected on his taxes. This bill will allow a municipality to do that if they want to which would mean that as it stands right now, parts of Ontario would be giving the money directly to the farmer who built the fence, and in other areas he’d have to wait until the municipality collected it. I think it would be better if the bill were changed to allow them to collect it from the municipality right at the start.

I have received several complaints in my area where we have a lot of government-owned laud, by Natural Resources, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, conservation authorities, et cetera. In this bill, they are going to be exempt. I certainly do not agree with this. A resolution has been sent to the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) from Nottawasaga township to this effect. I have had a constituent from Euphrasia township who had problems with the Ministry of Natural Resources for not keeping up its half of the fence. I felt it was very bad to leave them out of the bill because, if government is going to compete with a private landowner, or a private farmer to buy land and become landowners, then it must accept the responsibility of being a landowner just as anyone else and there’s no way that it should be exempt from the act. So, as has been stated, we will be making an amendment to the bill to bring in crown land and municipalities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. It is now 10:30 o’clock; perhaps the honourable member should adjourn the debate.

Mr. McKessock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say, as has been stated before, good fences do make good neighbours, and good neighbours make good fences. If that is adhered to, we really don’t have to consult this act at all.

[10:30]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is 10:30; does the House wish to continue further to complete second reading or not?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like second reading to be completed tonight, especially in view of the fact that Reeve Darby of Tiny township, who is representing the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, is here to watch this debate; I am sure he wants the second reading to be done.

A number of questions have been raised to which I would like to reply. If the members who raised them are satisfied, I will ask that second reading now be given. I will reply to all those questions when we reach committee of the whole, if that is acceptable to the House. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion for second reading be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.