Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

CHILD WELFARE ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks on the bill before us will be very brief. I may have some response to the honourable members opposite when they have completed their remarks.

Basically the amendments before the House do not result in any change in principle from the amending act proclaimed in June of this year. They arise rather out of some issues that resulted from judicial interpretation of some of the sections included in the earlier amendments and that have given rise to some difficulty and delays as a result. It is our intention to introduce these amendments primarily with a view to tightening up in some cases the definitions in the act or certain sections so it more clearly reflects the original intention and eliminates some of the problems that have resulted from judicial interpretation.

I suppose the one most commonly known to the honourable members is the one relating to the definition of a parent and the difficulties created with respect to notification of putative fathers. I think perhaps, as the honourable members will recognize, that is addressed specifically here along with a number of other minor amendments that might well be described as housekeeping.

Mr. Blundy: I have gone over the bill and the explanation for the various amendments being suggested. I agree, as the minister says, there is no change being suggested to change the principle of the bill or the main intent of the bill.

I have discussed several of the amendments with people who are active in the family court and in child welfare eases even in my own constituency and I find they have already had problems with two of the areas of suggested change.

I believe the amendment defining the parent more specifically is certainly a much-needed amendment. That particularly is one in which I have had some personal involvement with a constituent.

I just can’t think of any other particular section of the amendments I feel are not reasonable and proper. I would suggest that we support the amendments put forth.

Mr. McClellan: I will try to avoid provoking the bat. I assume it’s a Tory bat that has been brought in here to plague and torment us as all Tory things are.

I rise on behalf of our caucus to support Bill 162. I do want to make a few brief remarks. I gather part of the problem that has led to this bill being introduced has been errors or sins of omission or commission in the drafting. We are pleased to approve the necessary drafting changes without any further ado.

I do remain somewhat puzzled as to how on earth the courts could come to some of the interpretations they seem to have come to. I do want to ask a question, even if rhetorically, because one of the amendments deals with the issue of the unified family court. The old Child Welfare Act read, “‘Judge,’ unless otherwise indicated, means a provincial judge presiding in a provincial court (family division) or in the unified family court.” The ministry has felt it necessary to amend that so that it reads, “‘Judge,’ unless otherwise indicated, means a provincial judge presiding in a provincial court (family division) or a judge presiding in the unified family court.”

I don’t understand how there could be any confusion or ambiguity about that. I hope and pray that kind of confusion or ambiguity about such a basic simple, elementary matter hasn’t caused confusion within our family court. Perhaps the minister can clarify that, because if the situation is that there is that kind of discombobulation in reading a simple sentence in the Child Welfare Act, it makes one want to scream.

I may be misunderstanding the situation entirely and I welcome the minister’s clarification. I don’t understand how section 1(e) in the Child Welfare Act, which was proclaimed last June, could be misinterpreted.

The fact that it’s necessary to refer at all in the legislation to the particular circumstance of the particular unified family court in the particular city of Hamilton prompts me to ask the minister how long it is going to be before the government proceeds with the rest of its reforms to the family court and establishes the unified family court across the province. The question is, when has a pilot project ceased to be a pilot project for this government? The answer seems to be never, that pilot projects remain pilot projects forever and ever, amen. They never make the transition from successful demonstration to implementation on a province-wide basis.

That is why we have to deal with the silly little amendment to section 1(e). The reason is the government hasn’t had the foresight or wisdom to proceed to extend the success of the unified family court across the province. Nevertheless, why should we quibble about section 1(e)? We will support the amendment.

The change with respect to a definition of child again is something we are pleased to support because it permits the provision of service to children who have passed their 16th birthday while they are in the care or protection of a children’s aid society. That was a matter we had raised when we were doing a clause by clause study of the Child Welfare Act last fall. We had thought we had drafting that covered that contingency. We were pleased to refine the drafting so we could ensure the children who passed their 16th birthday were not cut off service, if that service had been commenced prior to the 16th birthday.

Third, we support the changes with respect to the definition of “parent,” although again I would like some understanding from the minister as to the nature of the confusion in interpreting the definition of “parent” under the existing drafting of the new Child Welfare Act. In his background statement dated October 18, l979 -- a description of the amendments, and the purpose and explanation of each of the amendments prepared by the children’s services division -- there is a section that deals with the change in definition of “parent,” and it reads:

“The definition as presently drafted has been interpreted to include all biological parents. This has created major problems. For example, agencies are being required to search for and notify all persons who had sexual intercourse with an unwed mother during a possible period of conception, even though the relationship with the mother was very brief.”

I don’t understand how it is possible to come to that interpretation of “parent” under the old definition of the Child Welfare Act. To the extent it is possible, I would ask the minister if he could elaborate a little bit on particulars of difficulties that have arisen within the family court. Perhaps be can tell us the number of cases that have been put off the rails because of the problem with the definition of “parent” as we had passed it and as we proclaimed in June and illustrate it with some examples.

I find myself mystified as to how it would be possible for the court to take the kind of interpretation that is set out in your background document. Nevertheless, we are pleased to support the definitions that are presented before us tonight.

I understand a number of adoption cases have been held up for prolonged periods of time because of the interpretation taken by judges that the new act requires notification of -- who, I am not sure. I gather, from the background statement, that even the putative father who has not acknowledged paternity is required to be notified. That is the basis of my confusion.

I would be concerned if a court could read the Child Welfare Act and come to the conclusion that a putative father who had not acknowledged paternity was required to receive notice, either under a protection hearing or, more importantly, under an adoption hearing. That seems to be bizarre in the extreme. If it is the case that judges are taking that kind of a bizarre interpretation, I would think that would be a matter the minister would want to communicate to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) so he could incorporate the problem in his next training manual.

I don’t know whether I am being unnecessarily harsh, but I would like to have some understanding of the precise nature of the difficulty that the definition seems to have been creating. I would like, as well, to know the number of adoption cases that are hanging fire as a result of this apparent necessity to notify anybody who ever had a relationship of any kind whatsoever with the child or the child’s mother.

Having said that, I want to say I am particularly pleased that there is a grandfather clause in this act that -- is that a bad pun?

[8:15]

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s the extent of it.

Mr. McClellan: There is a transitional clause in section 6 of the bill in front of us that permits the new bill to apply to adoptions initiated since June 15. I think that’s a very welcome measure and applaud the ministry for it and express the hope that adoptions hanging fire can be completed as expeditiously as possible when this bill is passed. A number of colleagues have expressed concerns to me as a result of their own constituency casework about adoptions delayed because of this new, seemingly universal, requirement to notify people prior to the completion of the adoption transactions.

Finally, and a matter of particular concern I had talked about when we were doing clause by clause, I’m pleased to see the amendments to section 5 subsections 2 and 3 that, I hope, make sure the issue of consent is dealt with before an adoption placement is actually made.

Mr. Speaker, the minister will probably recall I had expressed some real concern because of the six-month period in the adoption during which a child is placed with adoptive parents on a trial basis before the adoption is finalized. We want to make sure in our legislation the issue of consent to adoption by the birth parent has been adequately disposed of before a child is actually placed on trial in an adopting home.

We had thought the ministry had given us a drafting that took care of that. We have learned subsequently such is not the case. I can only express the hope that this time we have the right wording. I can’t think of anything more damaging to a child or adopting parents than to have an adoption placement made on a trial basis and then discover the consent issue has not been completed or improperly dealt with so, after five months, the child has to be removed from the adopting home and placed back either in a kind of limbo or God knows what.

I don’t need to go through any more details. I did just want to comment on those five points. I do want to say something very briefly about adoptions in general because this act does touch on a number of aspects of the adoption process.

We have gone through a major re-examination and re-enactment of the Child Welfare Act and dealt with a number of sections. But one of the sections we did not deal with as a legislature and one of the sections not dealt with substantially as a ministry was the adoption section. I want to suggest to the minister before much more time passes, and certainly before he begins any detailed work on the omnibus children’s bill, this ministry has an obligation to undertake a major systematic review of Ontario’s adoption program.

I have a sense of unease about our adoption program because I don’t think we know very much about it. I don’t think we know who is adopted -- what kind of children, from what kinds of backgrounds, are placed for adoption. I don’t think we know very much about the reasons why children are placed for adoption. I don’t think we know very much about what kind of people adopt children. I don’t think we know about the success rate of our adoption program. I don’t think we know very much about how many adoptions are successful, how many are unsuccessful and what we mean by those terms. I don’t think we even know.

I don’t think we know how many adoptions break down and what happens to the children where adoptions break down. I could go on and on, but I don’t think I need to. The minister probably understands very clearly what I’m talking about. We’ve been running the adoption program almost -- not quite, but almost -- let’s say semi-consciously. We know there are people who want children. We know there are people who don’t appear to be able to keep their children. So the ministry has stepped into this supply-demand equation and has facilitated the movement of children from the supply equation to the demand equation. But I am not sure we know very clearly what it is we are doing.

I would like the ministry to undertake a systematic review, pulling together all of the information we have on file around the province and within the ministry about the nature of our adoption program so we can take a cold, hard look at who is benefiting from adoption and what the disadvantages are, and the success and the failures. Let us understand very clearly what the nature of the exercise is before we get to the stage of being asked to deal with the omnibus children’s bill.

I think that would be a useful exercise for the ministry and for the children’s services division. I will be prodding the minister from time to time to encourage him to do this.

Mr. Conway: He needs to be prodded.

Mr. McClellan: He needs to be prodded. It is long overdue. I don’t think there has ever been this kind of thorough analysis of the program. I repeat, it is long overdue and the minister needs to get to work on it.

I want to make a final comment, which will be even briefer than brief. We have another piece of the Child Welfare Act in front of us dealing with virtually all sections of the act. The problem remains, this ministry does not commit sufficient resources to children’s aid societies to permit them to fulfil their responsibilities under the legislation we have passed. We are faced with a government steadfastly refusing to provide our children’s aid societies with the budget they need to do the job the law requires them to do.

The minister will probably continue to pretend he has funded them at an adequate level. I will continue to insist, as do virtually all of the children’s aid societies and almost everybody in the children’s services field, that the minister is playing a dangerous and unfair game with children’s aid societies. It is not tolerable for us to pass laws which increase their burden of responsibilities and at the same time constrain their budgets to levels below the rate of inflation so the purchasing power of their dollar is eroded in real terms.

Mr. Speaker: What section of the bill is that, please?

Mr. McClellan: These are, as I said, my concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Extraneous remarks.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think they were extraneous. The amendments deal with all aspects of the Child Welfare Act and we as legislators have an obligation to ourselves and, as critics, to the government to point out when and where the government is imposing legal obligations, as it does in this statute here in my hand on children’s aid societies, without providing them the wherewithal to do their job. This minister has done precisely that to his everlasting shame.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, now that I can rise and speak in safety since the member for Bellwoods has apparently put our guest on the curtain to sleep, I will take a few moments to respond specifically.

Mr. McClellan: I put the bat to sleep.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, but you weren’t here earlier. He crossed the House. He started out over on that side.

First of all, I would like to express my thanks to the honourable members opposite for their support and co-operation in enabling us to bring in during this session these necessary amendments to the Child Welfare Act. The member for Bellwoods and the member for Sarnia have raised a number of relevant questions about the underlying need for these amendments at this time.

As has been pointed out, the bills were given a great deal of consideration, and very careful scrutiny, especially in committee last fall. We thought at that point we had arrived at a drafting of a bill that would avoid the kinds of difficulties that have subsequently emerged.

In response to the member for Bellwood’s specific question relating to the reason for the change in the definition of a judge, I might point out that probably that section is one where we did overlook a drafting error. As the section previously appeared, it defined a judge, unless otherwise indicated, as meaning a provincial judge presiding in the provincial court or in the unified family court. The technicality there is that provincial judges do not sit in the unified family court. I’m not sure that has at this point created any serious problem, but it was something which was spotted after the legislation was passed.

With regard to the member’s concern -- and I suppose this is really a question that ought more properly to be addressed by the Attorney General -- about the timing of the further implementation of the unified family court system across the province, in the absence of the Attorney General, I will simply point out the pilot project the member referred to was established, as I understand it, for a three-year period. That three-year period will be expiring in June or July of next year. At least that’s my understanding, unless my information is incorrect.

I believe it is fair to say the Attorney General is addressing himself to that. The member might specifically wish to raise that question with him.

Mr. McClellan: So might the minister.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would simply prefer he answer the question than that I attempt to.

As to the problem that arose with respect to parent, one could go through a whole series of specific examples of the problem that arose there. I guess the simplest explanation of it is that if one looks at the original definition, the definition in the act as passed in June, the definition begins by saying “parent includes.” Because of the word “includes,” the interpretation that was given to that was that the definition which followed was not exhaustive. It included all parents and the specifics were illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Mr. Conway: Restrictive and exhaustive.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m not sure. Does that make sense? If one looks at the present amendment which we’re dealing with tonight, it begins “parent means.” We’re hoping that will eliminate the problem that has given rise to the kind of situation where in one instance, I am led to believe, there has been a case where a mother who was before the court was asked who the father of the child was. She was only able to identify him to the extent it might be one of three persons residing in another province.

There was some suggestion by the judge that all three possible parents would have to be served because, from the definition of parent to include putative fathers, the judge did not feel restricted by the words in the definition which followed the use of the word “includes.” So he included all possible or potential putative fathers. We hope this minor change will eliminate that.

[8:30]

The other kinds of problems that have arisen relate to the question of, for example, the original definition where it says, “a person who is not recognized in law to be the parent of the child but has acknowledged a parental relationship to the child and has voluntarily provided for the child’s care and support.”

The type of difficulty that arose there, and resulted in the change to limit that or to some acknowledgement, is within the 12-month period prior to the child being before the court for the purpose of adoption in some instances the court felt that if in, for example, the first year of a child’s life there had been a partner in the home who had expressed some interest in the child and, for that period of time, has settled intent to treat the child as theirs, even though the relationship might have terminated before the age of one and the child was before the court at age 12, that because there had been an expression of interest and a parent’s settled intent in the first year of the child’s life, that an effort had to be made to find that individual and to serve him with notice, even though there had been 11 years following when no such interest was demonstrated.

Although, as the member has indicated, last fall we all felt the drafting was clear, the literal interpretation that was applied has resulted in our recognizing some weaknesses in the drafting.

The member asked specifically whether we had any idea as to how many cases of adoption had been delayed by this. Our current estimate is it is in excess of 200. I can’t give him a specific figure down to the last one, but it’s a serious situation. That’s one of the reasons why I’m so appreciative of the member’s co-operation in getting these amendments through.

Regarding the member’s concluding remarks with respect to adoption generally and the concerns he raised with respect to the adoption system in the province, first of all, I would indicate we are looking at adoption as a whole with a view to the development of the omnibus bill. I would like to assure the member we also have some research under way on adoption, particularly relating to issues like adoption breakdown. I would be pleased to have my staff share with him a summary of that research if that might assist. If he has further suggestions or concern we might incorporate in those considerations, we’d be glad to do that, or at least to discuss those with him.

I think that addresses most of the concerns that have been raised by the members. That’s all I have to add.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 170, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening comment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mrs. Campbell: No?

Mr. Sweeney: I have no difficulty with the general principle of the bill. However, there are a couple of issues and questions which I would like to raise before we give it full approval for second reading.

Section 1 of the bill is certainly acceptable because it gives school boards greater flexibility as to where they may invest their money. I have serious doubts about whether they’re going to have very much surplus money to invest anyway, so I don’t think we need to be overly concerned about that.

Section 2 raises a question which is not described in the descriptive material given to us ahead of time. If I may draw it to the minister’s attention, perhaps she can tell me why.

Under the existing section 205(1)(d) of the Education Act there is a reference in section 1(1)(33)(vii) to funds. It refers to payments or contributions for past service pensions to a pension plan for officers and other employees of the board. For some reason I don’t understand, it has been eliminated from this particular bill. It has just been left out, and there is nothing to explain why it has been left out. I assume there has to be some reason for it. When the minister makes her comments afterwards, perhaps she can explain why that has been done because I can’t see any reason for its having been done.

I have a question with respect to section 2. Since the main reason for the change is that the government is going to be getting out of the debenture and mortgage business; since up until this particular point in time the ministry and the government have been buying debentures from the school boards through the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation; and since there was some indication from the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) when the budget was brought down that the government will be selling some of its mortgages and debentures, I would ask the minister whether or not this also means those debentures held by the ministry and the government from the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation will also be sold and, if so, what impact this might have upon school boards.

With respect to section 3, the point there is to change the funding balance between residential and commercial from 90 per cent down to 85 per cent. I would gather the implication which necessarily follows is that if the same amount of money is going to he raised locally, then the commercial tax source is going to have to pick up a greater portion of the load. That is the only implication that flows from that, quite obviously. The question which then flows from that is what are the implications for commercial taxpayers with respect to their share of the education tax? I would imagine the minister and the government have thought that one through as well and I wish they would share it with me.

The last point I would make is I notice most of the sections of this bill are to bring it into line with provisions in the Municipal Act. I would ask the minister why she didn’t take this opportunity also to bring into line with the Municipal Act the citizenship requirement for school trustees versus municipal councillors.

The minister is probably aware of the fact that recently in the region of Durham a school trustee from the separate board and one from the public board had to vacate their seats because they were British subjects rather than Canadian citizens. Apparently, the confusion arose because when they checked with the municipal clerk he said the same provision applied in the Municipal Act and the Education Act, and of course that is not true. Somewhere along the line if we are going through the process of trying to make the Education Act and the Municipal Act run parallel, then this would have been an obvious opportunity to do that as well.

I realize it is not the Education Act that has to be changed, it is the Municipal Act that has to be changed. The point I am making is if the minister would use her influence with her colleague in cabinet to get that change in the Municipal Act, we would have them parallel.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, this caucus supports wholeheartedly sections 1 and 3 of this bill. Section 1 expands the number of places where boards can invest moneys not immediately required by them. Here again, unless it is a sale of school properties -- and we hope not too many of those are sold; we hope we keep our schools open across the province and not close them at the rate suggested by the regional offices to the minister, as we heard a couple of weeks ago; elementary schools closing at the rate of one per week over the next five years. We hope this doesn’t occur. They won’t have large sums for investment but it does expand the places where they can invest the money to promissory notes of a municipality as defined by the Municipal Affairs Act into term deposits accepted by credit unions, as defined in the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

This expansion is, of course, a positive one. They may not have moneys to put there, unless from the sale of school properties which I hope will not occur to the extent anticipated. Certainly it is a positive step forward and I would support the investment of moneys in credit unions in particularly. It would be very reasonable for the Windsor Board of Education, for example, to invest any moneys not immediately needed in the Windsor Teachers’ Credit Union, to which virtually all the teachers in the Windsor board belong.

I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of any restrictions at all on which credit union moneys can be placed on term deposits.

There isn’t? Fine. I am glad to hear that. Or caisses populaires?

I know there certainly are in terms of borrowing for election campaigns. Candidates or parties on their behalf, riding associations on their behalf, cannot borrow at a credit union unless all their members belong to that particular credit union, which is, of course, not possible. I would prefer the borrowing and the interest gained by the financial institution involved be a credit union rather than a bank.

I am glad there is no restriction on the credit unions that school boards can invest in. There may well be some interesting talks across the bargaining table as to where the boards will invest their moneys. If the various boards of education are thought to be responsible financially, then I am sure there will be interest on the part of the teachers that they invest their money with the particular teachers’ credit union.

Certainly section 3 can be interpreted as a positive step forward to that shift of municipal taxation from farming residential to commercial as this section allows the rate to be levied on residential and farms to be dropped to 85 per cent of commercial from the present 90 per cent. If that is taken up by the various boards this is a shift of the mix of taxation in the proper direction; off residential and farms and on to commercial.

I am concerned about section 2, which allows the spending of one mill out of current revenues or allowing the collection of taxation of up to one mill after the front-end loading has been paid by the ministry for those capital permanent improvements in any given year. I am concerned in two ways. One, this certainly is a loosening up -- a giving of more autonomy, if you like -- to boards. After the ministry has paid its determined share of the permanent improvements they can then, in addition, go out and borrow in total, one mill for each of the secondary and public school panels from their local taxation or levy against their local taxation, up to one mill.

We have loosened that up. We have given them a little more autonomy in that sense as to how they can go. My criticism is that now you have chosen to take that step of putting them in a less restrictive situation, why are you limiting it to so small a step? Surely we can trust the school boards to be financially responsible and to set what they feel to be reasonable levies. I don’t see why we have to restrict the school boards in the way we have; this is certainly better than our current situation. It is certainly less restrictive and allows them to do more if they so wish. Why are we even cutting it off at this point? That’s the one criticism.

Certainly in expansion we are moving in the right direction with this amendment. Just why do we have to be as restrictive as we are in it? If there is a board that may want to, in a particular year, spend beyond what the minister has given them plus the one mill on their local tax base for the permanent improvements -- we may have a board that wants to do that in particular peculiar circumstances -- they are still limited by our legislation to this. Maybe we should have opened it up even more in that possibility.

I am not suggesting there are likely to be many boards taking that attitude at all. That’s more or less the minor one and one which argues for more board autonomy in financial matters than they have had and what they are allowed here, although this is certainly moving in the right direction.

My real concern here, though, looking ahead, is the effect this will have on local school boards. This will inevitably result in a shift to the municipal tax base from provincial financing for those permanent improvements. If we look down the road a year or two and see how this is operating, what we will find is that of the percentage of moneys spent on permanent improvements, the provincial share will have decreased and the municipal share will have increased. This again simply represents a shift of the cost of those permanent improvements from the provincial base to the municipal tax base.

Certainly, I agree with the scheme of front-end loading as I understand it and as it has been outlined, but I can see school boards having to spend for those permanent improvements -- and we are in a time of permanent improvements -- the totality of that one mill rate, as well as the front-end loading, and it certainly represents a shift to the municipal tax base.

With very few new schools being built, but with those schools that have been built in the great population expansion in our school system in the 1950s and 1960s, I suspect we need to make those permanent improvements in many of those schools. We are hitting the time where permanent improvements are needed to a much greater extent than five and 10 years ago.

We are heading into that whole area of increased permanent improvement. We now devise a system where a greater percentage of that permanent improvement will be paid by the local boards than has been up till now. That represents a shift from provincial to municipal expenditure, and again that percentage is going in the wrong direction by increasing at the municipal level rather than increasing at the provincial sources.

That is my real concern over section 2 of this bill and my concern for the future as local school boards find themselves, whether they like it not, having to use their municipal tax base more than they would have without this amendment for those much-needed permanent improvements.

However, we don’t feel that this entire bill should be opposed because of our concerns over this, but it certainly is a concern which we have as we see that shift to the municipal tax base from the provincial tax base as boards feel they must make permanent improvement expenditures to keep their school buildings in shape to serve the students in those schools.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some few brief comments in addition to those that my colleague has just made.

I too have looked at this bill as part of a package which includes section 1 of Bill 173 and Bill 171 and the bill to amend the Metro act that we dealt with the other evening. I too am suspicious that this is part of an overall change to provincial funding of capital works in our school systems. I notice that the minister was shaking her head when my colleague was speaking, and I hope she will be able to give us some very firm reassurances about this later. It seems to me the change to front-end loading, which is definitely an appropriate change, is being accompanied by a transfer in the carrying of a major component of school board capital costs from provincial finances to the property tax base, to the level of support that is available at the municipal level. It is great that we talk about that in terms of co-ordination between school boards and municipalities, but I have to reiterate that that appears to me to be something of a smokescreen.

If I might, I want to use one example of what I see to be something that may be coming in the future; again, I hope the minister will assure us we’re wrong, but I’m not convinced at the moment.

I will use the example of a school board in my own area, because it is one I know well. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the area I represent is a growing area. Declining enrolments are a problem for the city of Hamilton but not at all a problem for Wentworth county, and difficulties are being created because of that. We have some schools that are seriously overcrowded and we need fairly substantial capital works in terms of renovation, major improvements or extensions, or maybe even new schools.

Back in the spring, the minister indicated funds would be available for the building of a new school for the Wentworth County Board of Education. Several of us who come from that area thought that was very appropriate and appreciated the minister’s generosity. The school board too felt it would be a step in the direction of filling our requirement for new school services. But it has transpired that the money allocated by the minister was completely inadequate for the school board’s needs. To put figures to it, just to make it easier to comprehend, the minister announced a grant of approximately $1 million to build a new school which, in fact is going to cost about $1.7 million.

The school board has been discussing that with officials of the ministry, and there may or may not be an announcement in the not-too-distant future. It is hoped there will be, because the need for that new school is urgent and pressing and has been for some time.

From the background work I have done and from talking to people at the school board level and those in other school systems who understand these problems, it seems to me that the minister’s response is likely to be that the extra $700,000 has to be raised locally, and here, in this bill, is the mechanism for raising that money.

My very serious concern is that there is no commitment attached to these changes; that the balance between local and provincial funding of capital works in our school system will remain unchanged for school boards to get funds for their needs for capital improvements and for construction.

The problem is one we debated at length recently in other contexts. I don’t want to go into it, but the property taxpayers of this province are already seriously overburdened, and section 2 of this bill is providing for the possibility of applying an additional burden to those property taxpayers for a need that cannot be argued: to provide for schools that are absolutely necessary and for which there will be a partial provincial grant dangling there as a carrot.

The pressure on the school board is going to be along these lines: “Unless we raise this extra one mill locally, we won’t get the provincial grant; therefore, we will have nothing and will have to apply this additional burden to the property taxpayers.” I see that as a very real concern. We cannot go on asking the property tax base to bear more and more of the costs for essential services -- services such as education which are very vital and fundamental to the fabric and future of this province.

Yet with this kind of package -- and I have to say it has been packaged very well -- here it is, one key clause contained in a bill that has several amendments, the rest of which are perfectly supportable and unarguable and perhaps even overdue. There are a couple of other little bills, which in themselves appear very innocuous. There is a bill to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act. How would anybody be too upset about that? Yet when all of them are put together, and when you look at the impact on the municipal taxpayer and at the impact on the relationship between school boards and the property tax base, then I think there are grounds for very real concern.

I am looking forward to some very strong on the record reassurance that this is not the case from the minister, and that the balance between provincial grants and moneys that must be raised locally will remain exactly as it has been. Without that assurance, it seems to me we are putting a mechanism in place with this bill for making the property taxpayers pay yet more towards school capital works.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be able to hear my somewhat peculiar vocal capabilities this evening.

I am delighted to hear the support for sections 1 and 3 of the amendments to the Education Act which specifically relate to the funding mechanisms of capital construction for the school system and for the investment capabilities of school boards. We felt, since the Municipal Act had widened the opportunities for municipalities in terms of the utilization of credit unions and caisses populaires, that it was only appropriate the school boards should have precisely the same kind of capability. That is the reason for the modification of section 1.

I am a little concerned at the slightly misanthropic view of section 2 which has been suggested by the members for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) and Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). The intent of the section is to continue the protection of the local taxpayer which has been in existence for some time within the Education Act. The proposed change really permits the implementation of the direct capital funding mechanism which the members of school boards right across the province have supported vigorously from the time this discussion first began. There is no intent, I may reassure the honourable members, to do anything other than to ensure a degree of protection to the taxpayer, the local taxpayer, which is currently in existence.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) raised the matter of that portion of the contribution to the past pension fund which had been lumped with the permanent improvements and capital funds in the present section of the bill. It is believed that contributions to past pensions should more appropriately be treated as operating expenditure rather than as capital expenditure, in this context at any rate. They are so treated for grant purposes as part of the ordinary operating expenditure and are funded in that mechanism. Therefore, it was not felt necessary to include them in this revised mechanism which has been established specifically for construction purposes, capital purposes, for the school boards.

I can reassure the honourable member that the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation will stay in business to complete its debenture commitments until March 31, 1980, but it will not be issuing new debentures thereafter. To my knowledge, it is not going to get rid of any of those that it is holding either. I suppose there may be a mechanism developed whereby they will be transferred to another agency, but to my knowledge nothing of that sort is going to happen. There will not be a sale of debentures by the corporation I have been informed; I have inquired about that as well.

[9:00]

We think it is important to implement section 3 of this bill this year, because the equalization factor modifications which have been made for 1980 could result, as I’m sure the honourable members know, in a shift of burden to residential and farm taxpayers from commercial. The reduction from 90 per cent to 85 per cent is specifically to try to ease that burden and to get it back on to a reasonably equalized basis in spite of the changes in the equalized assessment factor modification which has been made.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot mentioned the citizenship requirement, and I’m sure he thinks the citizenship requirement in the Education Act is probably the correct one. I shall be pleased to speak to my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) to prevail upon him to modify the Municipal Act in order to have it contain exactly the same provision.

The member for Wentworth was questioning the funding for permanent improvements and the funding mechanism therefor. The available funds from the province for permanent improvements, as I’m sure the honourable member knows, are allocated to school boards in relation to priority of the need which they establish. The school boards are given the power to raise a local share, either through taxation in the year of acquisition within the one-mill limit or through the sale of debentures with small amortization over several years.

There is no intent at all, if I may reassure the honourable member, to change the basis of sharing between the provincial funding mechanism and the local property taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I think that really is all I have to say in response to the points raised by the honourable members. It is my sincere hope they will approve the second reading of this bill rapidly.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act; all these amendments are part of the government’s continuing efforts to increase the authority and responsibility of municipal governments in Ontario.

The bill includes an amendment to enable regional municipalities, counties -- including the county of Oxford -- and local municipalities outside regional municipalities to issue debentures on behalf of and at the request of local school boards situated within their area of jurisdiction. This change is proposed to complement the government’s policy to provide front-end grants for school board capital projects and to meet the concerns of the larger municipalities on the need to reduce the number of local government borrowers in the public bond market.

The proposed provision would not -- and I stress the word “not” -- empower municipal councils to approve or disapprove the permanent investments of the school boards to be financed by these debentures.

Other amendments are being proposed to provide councils with greater discretionary authority in carrying out their responsibilities. For example, the bill seeks to enable a municipality to deposit reserve funds and debenture sinking funds in credit unions. Amendments are also included to provide council with broader authority to appoint members to boards of management; to restrict the number of animals in each household; to provide benefit plans for members of council; and reduce, cancel or refund taxes in respect to buildings registered unsuitable and unusable by fire, demolition or other causes.

The area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto have been concerned about the need to register group homes in order to facilitate the enforcement of the zoning bylaws affecting group homes and to have public records of those who are responsible in case of problems with a group home. To overcome these concerns, an amendment is proposed to provide for a system of registration of group homes by municipalities and to prohibit the operation of group homes that are not properly registered. This change would also allow inspections where there is reason to believe a group home is operating but not registered.

At the request of the Metropolitan Toronto council, an amendment is being made to enable the council -- any council, not just Metropolitan Toronto’s -- to exempt from its taxi-licensing bylaw taxis carrying school children, disabled persons and handicapped persons from one municipality to another under a prearranged contract. This amendment also permits municipalities to make agreements with each other so that taxis licensed in one municipality can pick up in another.

Finally, the bill proposes to provide a more equitable arrangement for allocating the cost of the remuneration and expenses paid to the municipally appointed members of local boards representing more than one municipality. The amendment seeks to enable the participating municipalities to determine the rate and amount of remuneration and expenses to be paid to their appointees by the local board.

Such a change is being made to avoid the potential cost burden which would otherwise be experienced by the smaller municipalities, particularly in northern Ontario, in funding the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the representatives on joint local boards. Conservation authorities, however, are not affected by this proposed change.

As I indicated at the beginning, there are a number of sections in this act which assist the municipalities in giving them broader powers. I would ask for the support of the House in giving second reading to this bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to a number of matters in this bill. I hope he will have a clear answer for us later on. I want to indicate at the outset that we plan to support this bill in principle, but we do have some questions concerning it.

We all know the section dealing with school boards is similar to a section we dealt with recently in the Metropolitan Toronto bill. The grant for capital projects have to be up front, rather than going by way of amortized loans. At the moment, I guess Metropolitan Toronto is in a position to go the sinking fund debentures route, but many municipalities do not have that particular leverage. They have to go through serial debentures, which means they have to pay both the principal and interest annually on loans.

It seems surprising that where the bill dealing with the management boards was so precise with respect to individual municipalities, in that they could have no fewer than three and no more than seven representatives on management board, the bill dealing with joint boards is ambiguous and there could very easily be as many as 14 representatives on a management board. One section is very specific and then in the section immediately following there is ambiguity. That is why we are here today, to try to correct that ambiguity.

The parliamentary assistant has alluded to the situation with regard to taxis and to the fact we were somewhat remiss earlier this year when we dealt with the bill that permitted municipalities to restrict legislation governing taxis emanating from their own municipalities. Obviously, someone did not fulfill their responsibilities -- the government, local taxi cab operators or whoever. It seems odd that after the bill is passed they make representation that would exempt handicapped persons -- the physically disabled -- and school-age children in the legislation.

I hope, as far as the definitions are concerned, there is no problem later with physically handicapped or school-age children. I’m not sure what would happen if you had children of immediate pre-school age, for instance children four years old, and there was a contract arranged to transport them from one municipality to another. I wonder how the ministry would deal with this problem; or a situation in which the definition regarding handicapped persons or disabled persons was not clear. I’m wondering how the ministry is going to deal with these particular matters.

The other problem has to do with the group life and accident benefits that councils will be able to derive in the future. I’m wondering whether the ministry is giving any thought to the impact of some of these costs on smaller municipalities. The impact of these costs could be much greater than remuneration itself.

If a particular councillor were on the council of a small municipality, small in population and small in assessment, for a number of years and were to get significant benefits, I’m wondering if the ministry could indicate whether they are going to ask the various councils to make public the impact of those benefits on the municipality over a long period of time. I think this is important to ensure there is no difficulty later on when benefits have to be paid and the ratepayers of that municipality have not had a clear indication of what that impact will be.

Lastly, I want to draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to the tax rebates for damaged buildings. I wonder if he is aware of a letter that went to the minister, dated November 27, 1979, only last week, from the township of Logan, which questions this particular amendment.

The council of the township of Logan would like to see the walls of structures properly removed or buried before refunds are granted for buildings demolished or razed by fire.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, they now have the opportunity, if this amendment is carried, to get refunds for partially damaged buildings. This particular township is concerned that they may have to give refunds even if those walls are partially standing. They want to have a clean sweep of the areas, so there is no problem with children playing in the area or other passersby being injured by standing walls.

If the parliamentary assistant would direct his answers to some of these questions, I would be more than happy to hear his response.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have only a small number of comments on this bill. It’s another one of those bills that gives the appearance of being a housekeeping bill, but which in fact contains a number of provisions which are very important. Some of the provisions are things which should have been dealt with previously, perhaps, and others have some greater significance than is first apparent.

[9:15]

We’ve discussed the matter of municipal borrowing for school boards, which is the first section of the bill, on previous occasions. Indeed it’s tied, in an indirect kind of way, with the bill on which we have just completed second reading.

The problem is one that will continue to exist and which is not really satisfied by this bill, even though this bill goes some way to dealing with the overall financial wellbeing of the municipality. The problem is that relationships between school boards and municipalities are not what they should be; in fact they are so far from what they should be that I can predict that it’s only with a great deal of expressed resentment, with a great deal of hostility, that municipal councils are going to deal with requests from school boards for debentures under section 1 of this bill

Certainly, it makes a great deal of sense to have debentures that are necessary for school purposes counted as part of the overall debt load of the municipality and considered as part of the overall financial stability of a municipality when the local or regional council is considering such things. Certainly, some of those municipalities have found themselves in some financial difficulty -- difficulty is too strong a word, Mr. Speaker, but have seen the future looking a little gloomier than it should and have been up against their debt load ceiling and have suffered the consequence of that because of lack of co-ordination between the municipality and school boards.

We’ve already seen a situation in the eastern part of this province where a municipality has said, “We refuse to continue to collect the education portion of the tax levy that is required by the school board.” The school board has therefore had to go to the considerable length of producing its own property tax bills and dealing with its own property tax collection.

Relationships between school boards and municipalities are grim. I know from discussions with municipal councillors, as recently as this weekend, that there is no prospect of those relationships getting any better; indeed the request for school board tax levies for 1980 are probably going to be met with a great deal of hostility in municipal council chambers right across this province. We are now adding to those not only the operating portion of the cost of the school board but a portion of the capital cost faced by the school board.

So while we support that particular section of the bill, it’s with a great deal of concern about this deterioration in relationships, and with a very strong suggestion to the minister that consideration be given to all steps possible to improve the day-to-day relationships and the planning relationships between the school boards and the municipalities. If that’s not done, then this section isn’t going to work; rather it’s going to be the vehicle for even more bad feeling and the basis for future battles between school boards and municipalities. I would really be concerned if those relationships degenerate in that way.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 deal with the matter of investment of municipal councils. We’ve talked about that before as well, in a number of contexts.

Fortunately, we appear to have finished the process whereby credit unions have been opened up completely for use by municipal councils. Nevertheless, this particular section still imposes conditions such that municipalities are not going to be attracted towards using credit unions.

Credit unions, at the moment, are facing very great hardship. They’re in a situation caused by the dramatic increase in interest rates, that has been precipitated by the minister’s friends in Ottawa and about which absolutely nothing has been done by this particular government. The credit unions are suffering as a result of that because they have to pay interest rates on their deposits that are equal to, and in some cases greater than, the rates which they are garnering on the moneys which they have out to loan. That’s a serious problem for credit unions.

I want to suggest that when we were looking at this particular bill we could have taken steps that were very much more positive to encourage municipal councils to make use of credit unions for their day-today deposit of funds. That action in itself would have assisted many of the credit unions which are presently feeling in a somewhat tight position. It is a difficulty that the bill does not address and that it could have addressed. There could have been some incentive from municipal councils to use credit unions.

My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) says they can’t do it. If they can’t do it then I have to ask why this section is being passed at all. The section is being passed because municipal councils see some future in the use of credit unions, and because the credit union movement in this province would welcome the investment of municipal funds, for short terms, in credit unions, and would welcome being able to draw on the reserves that some credit unions have for loans to municipalities in a cash flow situation.

The idea is a good one, but the mechanism is not going to help. We are not going to move away from the situation where municipalities simply are not using credit unions. It doesn’t matter how much legislation we pass in this House; unless there is an incentive provided municipalities are unlikely to start using credit unions, and that is pretty unfortunate.

The section on appointments to boards of management, Mr. Speaker, seems to us to be very overdue. Of course, such a body as a municipal council should have the autonomy to set up a board of management, to establish how many people and what kind of people should be on it, and to allow it to function as an operating arm of the municipal council. We have no difficulty with that at all, we welcome the introduction of that section.

The matter concerning permissive bylaws on control of the number of animals per household rather than per individual also has our support. In supporting it, we have to say we wonder why the control per person rather than per household was ever put in place in the first place.

I reviewed the record on that and it seems it was put in place for the good old reason that is always given from the other side of this House: that is what the municipalities asked for. I have to suggest that sometimes municipalities may need a little bit of advice a little hit of assistance; they may need at least a suggestion that something else could serve their needs even better than that which they are asking for.

Controlling the number of animals per person in a municipality does not do anything to solve the problem. As is stated very clearly in the background material for this particular bill, if there are 10 people living in a household and the municipal bylaw says two animals per person, then that is allowing a number of animals in the household which is totally and utterly unacceptable to any reasonable thinking person. It is the number of animals per household which needs to be controlled, so that the senior citizen or the person living alone is able to have two pets, and so the individual within a family who wants to have two pets can only do so if others in that family are prepared to agree that those two pets can be owned by one individual.

This section is what is needed. It is what should have been brought in in the first place, and we welcome it.

Section 7 concerns taxi pickup agreements. I reviewed Hansard on this particular section as well, because it is a very important one to municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto. It is also a very important matter to others in suburban municipalities where the suburban municipality is dependent on the city for quite a number of services.

The matter of taxis raiding in municipalities in which they are not licensed is one that has been a matter of some considerable concern. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) indicated back in December of last year when the original amendment that this is now amending again was before the House that a whole new approach was needed to the matter of taxi licensing. I have to reiterate that we still believe that to be the case.

Given that background, we have to welcome this particular section as being a rational approach to dealing with a problem that somehow got overlooked the last time taxi agreements were discussed in this House.

Section 8, on group homes and the registration of group homes, seems to me to be a section where all the things the minister has talked to us about -- co-ordination, co-operation and consultation -- went completely and utterly afoul. This particular section is supposed to be in response to a request from municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto for some registration ability so that they are aware of the location of group homes and can ensure the provisions they wish to lay down in their zoning bylaws are being upheld.

As of Friday afternoon, many of the individuals who were most closely concerned, and who are also members of the council of the city of Toronto, were not aware of this particular item being contained in this bill. They were concerned about its impact. They were concerned that it was too restrictive in some senses and not restrictive enough in another. They were very upset that we would get to this very late stage in the process, where it was indicated to them that the bill was to come forward today, and yet the major municipalities that have been involved in this battle ever since the beginning and the municipality for which the private bill on which this is based was introduced have not been properly consulted.

It was a great disappointment to me, Mr. Speaker, and I was happy to fill in on behalf of the government and to send a copy of my bill to city hall so that they became aware of what was contained in this bill. I welcomed the opportunity to do that, and I will welcome the opportunity to do it in the future when it is officially my responsibility, as it will be.

I really have to say to the parliamentary assistant, because the minister isn’t here, what goes on? What is happening with this promised consultation and co-operation and coordination when this kind of thing happens, when there have to be last-minute meetings this afternoon between the mayor of the city of Toronto and the staff of the ministry -- perhaps the minister was there as well, I don’t know, but he is certainly not here tonight -- to try to iron out a section so vital to the continuation and proper control of group homes within our largest urban centre?

We haven’t had a full and complete opportunity to review the agreement that was hammered out at that meeting this afternoon. The concerns we have are still there. We are not satisfied with the definition that is contained in this bill, we are not satisfied with the details of the registration procedure and we will be reviewing these in the hours ahead.

It is my understanding we have an agreement from the minister that this bill can go to committee of the whole House so that we can introduce amendments to deal with that particular section, and also have time to review the points which still concern us, although they appear not to concern the mayor of the city of Toronto because a procedure has been put in place whereby the city’s private bill will go through.

This was not the original intention. We thought we were going to have legislation that was uniform across the province in order to deal with registration of group homes; that understanding seems to have disappeared. We wish to have a few hours in which to review that, so we have asked, and I understand we have the agreement of the government, that this bill will not be dealt with in committee of the whole House tonight but will be set aside until another day.

On section 9 of the bill, the matter of payment for municipal appointees on joint boards, if a --

Mr. Acting Speaker: If I might just interrupt, if the bill is going to committee there is no need to deal with it section by section as you have been doing. If you would, just speak to the principle of the bill; maybe you can confine yourself to the principle of section 9.

Mr. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your comment and I understand your intent, but the bill itself appears to have no principle. The bill is a mish-mash of 11 different principles that have been thrown together in one omnibus bill, it is difficult to speak to the one principle. I would hope that when we get to committee we might avoid the need to review each section and we might focus only upon those sections for which we have amendments, but I will keep my remaining comments very brief.

[9:30]

On the matter of payment by municipalities for service on joint boards the principle that is established by this bill is a good one because it relies on co-operation between the municipalities that make the appointments to the joint boards. We have no argument with that and would comment only that we hope the co-operation that this section relies upon will indeed be there and that two municipalities that may see themselves as being competing municipalities will forget that competition and work together to deal with this matter of remuneration.

The final section on reduction of taxes for damaged buildings has been dealt with very adequately by the previous speaker; I will not add any comments to that except to say that we support it.

We will support section 10 concerning benefit plans for members of council, but with reservations, because we suspect that it relates primarily to the matter of provision of errors and omissions insurance, a type of insurance over which we have very considerable concern, which we have opposed previously and which we continue to oppose.

Yet this section at least appears to permit the payment of health insurance premiums and life insurance premiums and other benefits to municipal councillors, things that those municipal councillors have been receiving in many municipalities for quite some time and which they have presumably been receiving illegally and which we feel they should receive, and receive legally.

However, the matter of errors and omissions insurance, to which I believe this is tied, is one over which we have very grave concern and we regard the government’s approach to the provision of that kind of insurance to be totally the wrong one.

Those are my comments. I appreciate the interjection earlier. We will be asking that this bill go to committee of the whole, but we will be supporting it in principle and we will hope that, bar the one section over which I have expressed concern, the rest of it will receive speedy passage because it does in general benefit our municipal colleagues.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to only one section of the bill, and that is section 8 dealing with group homes. I would remind the parliamentary assistant that there is a very strong move by this government to move various people in our society out of institutions back into community facilities of one type or another -- moving young people from training schools into group homes; moving retarded people from the large institutions into group facilities.

There has been a problem with some municipalities in this province which have set up various zoning bylaws to prevent the establishment of such group homes. I would remind the parliamentary assistant that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) has taken a very strong position on the provision of group homes, and that municipalities should take a fair share of group homes is definitely a movement that should be supported.

I have a concern that this particular section of the act, by giving the municipalities the power to require registration, could be used in a negative way. As the parliamentary assistant probably noticed, I discussed this very briefly with the Minister of Community and Social Services and there does not seem to be a deep concern along these lines; however, I would like to hear it clearly from the parliamentary assistant, representing the government at this time, that that is not the intent and that there is nothing in this section which would give municipalities even more power than they already have to keep much-needed group homes out of their municipalities.

The second concern I have with respect to this is that group homes already in place would not be jeopardized in any way by adding a registration provision to the powers of a municipality.

If the parliamentary assistant could speak to those points it would certainly help me to understand the intent of this and decide whether or not it is supportable. Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak as well on the principle of section 8 of the bill.

As my colleague from Hamilton has pointed out, we could have in fact 11 different bills in front of us rather than the one bill, but section 8 is a matter of particular urgency because it relates to the question that has been in front of this Legislature a number of times already this session. It has to do with the orderly provision of group home living facilities in communities on an adequate basis.

The government has used the excuse for the last four or five years, that it is unwilling to change section 35(1) of the Planning Act because it can encourage a municipality to voluntarily pass bylaws that will permit the orderly inclusion of group homes within their boundaries.

I want to say to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), who are both here, as well as to the parliamentary assistant, that we’re sick and tired of the systematic violation of human rights that is taking place across this province as municipality after municipality drags its heels on the question of passing model bylaws to permit group homes. We’re sick and tired of the kind of harassment and exclusion taking place in communities like Etobicoke. It is time for the government to stop deceiving itself and everybody else that voluntary encouragement is somehow going to work. It’s time to amend section 35(1) of the Planning Act and take away the power of municipalities to systematically violate human rights in this province by freezing the mentally retarded or the emotionally ill out of their community.

It’s intolerable. We have been waiting -- how many years now? -- for the group homes for the mentally retarded that were originally to be provided in Etobicoke. They still haven’t been provided after, I believe if I’m not mistaken, something like 18 months if not two years. The reason they haven’t been provided, of course, is that Etobicoke has refused to sully itself by allowing the mentally retarded to live in group homes within their boundaries.

What kind of rubbish is this? How long does the government intend to tolerate this kind of discrimination? It is discrimination. This isn’t a zoning issue, and it’s not an issue for minor housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Act; it’s an issue of basic human rights. No municipality has the right to say to a particular disadvantaged group, “You’re not welcome in our community. Go away and live somewhere else. If that means you have to stay in an institution like Orillia, too bad for you.”

That’s precisely what they’re saying, and as long as the government allows section 35(1) to be used against the disadvantaged it is saying that too.

The act in front of us, section 8 of the act in particular, is a very curious response by this government. Having dragged its feet and refused to deal with discrimination under section 35(1) of the Planning Act, the government is coming forward now in response to the fact the city of Toronto has had the courage and the decency and the goodwill to pass a model bylaw which permits the orderly and adequate development and location of group homes within the boundaries of the city of Toronto, which incidentally makes the city of Toronto virtually unique in the province. I believe there are one or two other municipalities that have shown the same kind of goodwill and the same kind of leadership, but they can be counted, and somebody can correct me if I am wrong, on the fingers of one hand.

So the government is coming forward in response to the city of Toronto’s model bylaw. What are they doing? They are not even accepting the kind of initiative the city of Toronto was prepared to make. As I read Bill 173, section 8, as I look at the definition of “group home,” I see it is substantially narrower than the definition in the city of Toronto’s model bylaw. I don’t want to belabour the point, because my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) indicated we were going to deal with this in committee, but I want to point out our concerns for the benefit of the parliamentary assistant so he can have a chance to reassess his position.

The city of Toronto’s model bylaw talks about the orderly development, and spacing and location, of two kinds of facilities, residential-care facilities and crisis-care facilities. They are both defined in the same terms as facilities in which members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency; such facilities being funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided solely for capital purposes; and thirdly, such facilities to be regulated or supervised under any general or special act.

That is substantially different, that is a substantially broader definition of group homes than the definition provided in section 8 of Bill 173, which limits the definition of group homes to a residence licensed or funded under an act of the Parliament of Canada or the province of Ontario, et cetera. We are not worried about the et ceteras involving how many people and that kind of thing, or the purposes for which people are living in group homes but the minister in his bill as presented now by the parliamentary assistant has narrowed the definition to exclude, for example, a group home which is neither licensed nor funded but which accepts referrals from a psychiatric hospital or from any other hospital. That is substantially different and substantially narrower. I want to know, as we now get to second reading, why it is the ministry is not prepared to accept the definition laid out in the city of Toronto’s model bylaw. Frankly, it causes one to be somewhat suspicious. You will have to forgive our paranoia, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing on the government’s record so far in this area that would warrant any kind of --

Mrs. Campbell: Trust.

Mr. McClellan: Trust; thank you. There is nothing in the record to warrant trust, only that which would warrant extreme caution, and indeed suspicion. Again, we will want these issues explored in exquisite detail when we get to committee of the whole House.

I go back, though, to the main point. None of the government’s initiatives of this kind are going to mean a thing unless other municipalities follow the example of the city of Toronto, and one or two other municipalities, in passing model zoning bylaws. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that municipalities are following the urging, the musing kinds of urgings of the ministry to do this on a voluntary basis, so the legislation in front of us tonight will only apply to those municipalities which have already taken an initiative. It is regrettable to have to say the government is not even prepared to back up the initiative taken by the city of Toronto in its zoning bylaw but is even trying to water that down. What kind of a commitment is that?

Why did the minister fail to consult with the city of Toronto? Was he trying to ram this through? Was he hoping nobody would notice there was a substantial difference between the definition as set out in Bill Pr5 and the definition as set out in Bill 173? Was this one of the parliamentary assistant’s little tricks, that unfortunately for him did not go undetected? The suspicion is certainly there, since the ministry did not even have the courtesy to provide a copy of the bill to the city of Toronto despite the fact that Bill Pr5 had been debated at the justice committee and the parliamentary assistant was present at that debate. He knew very well of the city’s interest in Bill Pr5 and could have anticipated very clearly the city’s interest in Bill 173.

[9:45]

I have the suspicion that there was an attempt at some fairly shoddy manipulation, to be brutally frank about it, and I don’t like it at all. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think it was nipped in the bud. A copy of the legislation was provided to the city and there has been opportunity for some discussion, although not enough. We will have the rest of that discussion when we get to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to speak in favour of Bill 173, particularly with respect to the principles as set out in sections 2 and 3.

I make my comments, sir, fully disclosing my own personal interest in that I happen to be a director of a federally incorporated trust company. On sections 2 and 3 we’re not dealing with any of the actions, either with respect to banks or trust companies, but rather with the opening of opportunities for credit unions to receive a variety of deposits and to benefit from that opportunity. As the critic of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the official opposition, I realize the responsibility for credit unions and for the work which they do is under the general ambiance of that ministry.

In sections 2 and 3 we see some long overdue changes which will allow credit unions and caisses populaires to benefit from the opportunity of receiving a variety of these deposits to which I have referred. In the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act of 1976 there was a reworking of the development of these financial institutions within the province of Ontario. Now we see, from the changes in section 2 which deals with a variety of other changes in the Municipal Act, that a municipality may deposit the benefits or results from certain funds -- and certain funds not only for current purposes but also for trust purposes -- with either a bank or a trust company, or in this third instance with a credit union. I believe these opportunities will be worthwhile for the further encouragement and development of credit unions within the province of Ontario.

The member for Wentworth commented to some extent on the interest rates and other changes which he would encourage to allow better competition. Of course as we’re all aware, the responsibility for amending legislation in that area is entirely a federal one. I’m pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) has made a variety of representations, both to the previous responsible government in Ottawa and also to the present federal ministry, to make a variety of changes to the Small Loans Act in order that the interest rates which can be charged and offered, both for borrowers and depositors, in each case can be up to the levels presently charged by the chartered banks and by the various trust companies, difficult though they may be for many people.

Certainly, the opportunity for credit unions to develop and flourish within the province of Ontario is a reflection of the kind of legislation which is encouraging, enabling as it does, and I think usefully, the future development of the opportunities of which various municipalities may choose to take advantage. I welcome that as one of the themes in the bill, and it certainly has my support.

Mr. Swart: My colleague the member for Wentworth has given, I think, a pretty comprehensive analysis of this bill. I am not going to repeat most of what he said. My colleague, the member for Bellwoods has put section 8 in perspective, and I am not going to deal with that either; but there are one or two comments I want to make, particularly with regard to section 1.

Before I do that, I want to say that we on this side welcome the broadening of the permission to members of council for the provision of fringe benefits, and they call them that, for the members of council. I am sure the government has done this primarily for those who spend full time in council work, and there are more and more of these people across the province. However, there are many others who spend a substantial part of their time and receive a substantial part of their remuneration from the municipality, and who in their other fields of operation may be precluded from having these kinds of benefits; they also should have the right to have these things provided by the municipalities.

I have to say I am somewhat surprised at the comments of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp); he seems to want to have these rather severely restricted. We in this party welcome legislation which gives greater autonomy and assigns greater responsibility to the municipal councils. We have no fear they will abuse this additional permissive legislation.

As has already been stated, we too welcome the fuller use of the credit unions in all fields of municipal finance. I recall that a year or so ago there was a small move made in this direction; at that time I urged the government to go further and allow municipalities to use the credit unions fully for their financial requirements, whether in depositing or in borrowing. It now seems this has come almost full circle and they are to be allowed to do so.

I hope the parliamentary assistant, however, would state in his reply if there still are any areas where municipalities can’t use the credit unions within their communities for their financial purposes. I believe there are some restrictions with regard to borrowing; I would be pleased if the parliamentary assistant could give a full statement in that regard.

If there are areas where they are still unable to use the facilities of credit unions, I suggest extension be given so the credit unions are put on exactly the same basis as banks and trust companies.

I have some concern with section 1 of this act. During the many years I was on municipal council it was a requirement that councils issue all the debentures for school boards. This was true whether the jurisdiction of the school boards was just within that municipality or whether they were school districts. If there was a capital expenditure to be made, the municipality within which it was to be made had to issue the debentures. During that period of time there was tremendous conflict, as my colleague the member for Wentworth has said, between the municipalities and the school boards.

I can recall, and I am sure the parliamentary assistant can also recall from his experience in municipal government, that certain municipalities refused to issue debentures and the school boards had to take them to court to get them to issue the debentures. Of course they had some concern because it did have an effect on their credit.

Then the government went the full cycle. It gave the school boards responsibility to issue the debentures. This has eliminated, to a substantial degree, the conflict between the municipalities and the school boards. Now they are returning to some sort of permissive legislation which would allow a school board to make application to regional governments, and to the county of Oxford, to issue the debentures on behalf of the school board.

I suggest this legislation is not only going to recreate some of that conflict that existed between the municipalities and the school boards, it will probably not meet the need it is intended to meet. In most eases, the regional council will only agree to issue these debentures where there is not a high debt in the finances of both the region and the area of the school board -- and across the province they are now generally the same, with the exception perhaps of Niagara. Where there is a very high debt within the area, where the region is reaching its maximum and the school board finds it difficult to sell debentures, the region will be reluctant to issue those debentures and the old conflicts will arise.

I say to the parliamentary assistant the arguments which he gave very briefly in his introductory remarks are not sufficient to satisfy me there is going to be any benefit from this. In fact, I think on balance it may cause more problems than it will provide benefits. I would hope in his remarks summing this up he could dwell at some greater length on this matter than he has to the present time. He has gone the full cycle and now has come back half-way in between. What we have in this section may well be the worst of all worlds.

Mr. Rotenberg: In dealing with replies I will probably try to reply to each of the members opposite who rose. I will deal with one item in the bill more than once, but that might be a more efficient way than trying to jump back and forth between members. I thank the members opposite for indicating their support for the bill in principle. It seems there is really only one section of the bill about which they have some reservations.

The member for Waterloo North indicated some approval of section 5 of the bill, regarding the persons on local boards. Part of it was previously ambiguous, and we have fixed this up. More important, we have given autonomy to local councils to choose the number of members on a local board and how they are picked, rather than setting it by legislation.

As far as the taxi cab area goes, there are some changing circumstances. In order to be clear and specific, we have clarified the bill so that the handicapped and school children can be exempt from municipal licensing bylaws and municipal taxi bylaws, if those municipalities so desire.

The member for Waterloo North also questioned the impact of the costs of group benefits. I think be is aware, as everyone is, that council members can now set their own salaries, the amount of remuneration they receive. I think this is in line with that philosophy that council members really are responsible for their own expenditures wherever they are spent and certainly for the amount of money spent on themselves. If a council wishes to spend money on group benefits for members of council, certainly that council should have that power.

As for accountability and how much it will cost, all expenditures of a council are public documents, as are all its budgetary approvals and budgetary reports. In the budget of any council this item will be there for the public to see, and I’m sure it will be there for the press to pick up. Somehow or other, a council can spend millions of dollars while the press ignores it, but if councillors raise their salaries a couple of thousand dollars it’s headlines. When a council decides it’s going to spend X number of dollars on group benefits for members of council it will be in its budget, it will be public; the amount of premiums will be known and council will be held responsible.

There was also some question from the member on section 11, as far as buildings damaged by fire and leaving up walls are concerned. This section, as with so many sections of the bill, is permissive. It isn’t mandatory that a municipal council must give a rebate or a refund or credit on taxes because a building has been damaged and is unusable. The council may or may not do that in its discretion. A council may say it is not going to give a tax relief, but after the walls have been taken down and it is in a safer condition it may say it will consider it. Because it is permissive and the council doesn’t have to do it, it doesn’t change that relationship between a council and an owner of a damaged building as to cleaning up the site and taking down the walls.

[10:00]

We have to understand all of these matters within the meaning of permissive legislation. It does not say a council “must”. It just gives the council more autonomy, something I think all members of this House have always seemed to think was a desirable thing. Maybe we sometimes move a little bit too slowly in giving local autonomy, but we give these things upon request.

The member for Wentworth and the member for Welland-Thorold raised the problem covered in section 1, which deals with debentures being issued by municipal councils.

When there are taxes to be levied there is no easy answer. There is no easy way to do it so everyone is happy. However in our changing circumstances, the changes in the forms of funding capital projects for school boards, some school boards will have to issue debentures.

I agree with the members opposite, from my own experience in municipal councils and here: when a school board asks a municipal council to issue a debenture there can be a certain amount of unhappiness about it, but it still is, in our opinion, the best way, rather than having the school board going to the market on their own and issuing a separate set of debentures, a separate prospectus, and implying to the lending community there are two sets of debentures being issued, there are two sets of credit ratings. The credit rating in a municipality is very important in determining the amount of interest paid. Quite frankly, if a municipality is going to save a quarter or half a point in the debenturing that may be more important to the taxpayers in saving money on debenturing, and therefore saving money on tax payments. It may be a little more important to the taxpayers than having a little bit of a rift between the school board and the council when each one is trying to shift the responsibility to the other for the new high tax rate if that happens.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not an ideal answer. There is no right answer to levying taxes. We simply feel this is probably the best under the circumstances.

The member for Wentworth, I’m pleased to note, was also in accordance with sections 2, 3 and 4 dealing with credit unions and caisses populaires. I may say to the member for Welland-Thorold, as far as I know now the credit unions do have all the same powers, rights and privileges as the banks within the meanings of these acts.

The member for Wentworth, however, seemed to indicate we should not only make the caisses populaires and the credit unions the equivalent of the banks and trust companies, giving them all the same rights, but we should give them something extra and something special. Quite frankly, I can’t go along with the philosophy of that idea. The credit unions are now in the same position as the banks and trust companies. They can compete from the same position. To give them some advantage or something extra within the context of these acts so they have an advantage over the banks or trust companies -- I don’t know if the member means he wants them to lend money at a lower rate or borrow money at a higher rate, I’m not too sure what kind of incentive he wants -- I think, quite frankly, they all should be in the same position.

We now come to what probably seems to be the most controversial matter in this bill. That is section 8, the matter of group homes. There seems to be some lack of information -- lack of research, lack of homework; I’m not sure what it is -- available to the members opposite. They seem to think this was sprung all of a sudden on the city councils; today, yesterday, last Friday or something like that. I can’t be responsible if the members of this House opposite haven’t done their homework.

I can’t be responsible if their colleagues on the city council who have the same party allegiance haven’t done their homework.

I’m talking about the city of Toronto council, this is where there was reference about this problem. In point of fact there has been consultation with the city of Toronto from the time of the initiation of this matter by the government, from the time there was a problem with the city of Toronto Pr5, in order to find a solution satisfactory both to the city of Toronto and to this government. There was consultation, with one alderman specifically who was the author of Pr5. If people at that level don’t talk to each other, we’re not responsible.

There seems to be an implication across the floor that the members of the city council weren’t aware of this act until a day or two ago. I would indicate to the members opposite the act was sent to the city of Toronto specifically, even though they get the Municipal Act anyway, the day it had its first reading. In fact I think they had a copy before it had its first reading in this House.

I am not too sure how the processes work down at city hall these days, but certainly if the city ball processes work properly those who are interested in the bill, those who are interested in the terms and conditions of the bill, can certainly find out what is going on and can know what bills have been introduced in this House, because it was sent to city hall.

There has been a constant and continuing dialogue with the city of Toronto; there was no last minute meeting with the mayor of the city of Toronto today. The consultation was continuing with the officials of city hall and the people at city hall; the meeting with the mayor today was not a last minute, sudden meeting, it was the culmination of a series of meetings with the city of Toronto people, both in person and on the phone, to understand, between us and them, what we are doing and how the city of Toronto will be able to operate within the terms and conditions of this legislation.

We had a communication back and forth with city hall and the city, in effect raised three objections to the legislation as it is in this act. Having replied to the city on how those three objections could be met, the mayor expressed an interest in having a face-to-face meeting in order to confirm what the government was prepared to do and how their objections would be met.

The member for Bellwoods has indicated the city wants a broader definition than is in this legislation. That is only partially true. The city wants a broader definition in order to include crisis-care centres, and they also want to include group homes which are not funded by governments.

In other cases the city wants a narrower definition than is in the legislation. The legislation provides for group homes from three to 10 people. The city of Toronto wants six to 10 people. The legislation as provided allows it in a single dwelling unit. The city of Toronto wants it only in a single detached home, so it can’t be in a semi-detached unit or an apartment or a duplex.

In some cases the city wants a wider definition, and in other cases the city wants a narrower definition. As I indicated to the city some time ago, and again in my talks with the mayor today, as far as the narrower definitions are concerned, whether in the city of Toronto or anywhere else, that is provided in the legislation. Section 8(2)(a), provides they may set up a registration system for any class or classes of group homes. If the city of Toronto wants to set up a class from six to 10, rather than the broader definition of three to 10, they can do that within their registration and therefore will only register those which are six to 10.

Mr. McClellan: According to your definition.

Mr. Rotenberg: No, according to their definition. The member for Bellwoods should do his homework, as the mayor of Toronto has done his,

The mayor of Toronto is quite satisfied they can set up a registration system that will cover the more restrictive groups they want rather than the broader definition within the legislation, As far as the broader definition goes, I think the members of the House realize this all arose because of the city’s initiative and the section of the city’s Bill Pr5 which wanted a broader definition.

We indicated to the city a number of weeks ago that we would like to proceed with this legislation as is, without including some of the broader definitions on group homes which the city of Toronto had in their private legislation. We have also indicated to the city of Toronto that if they amend the section as in Pr5 to accept the other definitions in the legislation as it is before us, but also initiate a private bill, a request which in effect would say the group homes are as they defined them, that is the crisis-care centre and the residential-care facility, we would not oppose that.

If they brought forward and amended their Pr5 to simply say for the purposes of this section of the act that for the city of Toronto the definition would include the crisis-care facilities and the residential-care facilities in their bylaw, we would not oppose that. In other words, we would not oppose the broader definition for the city of Toronto. That is quite acceptable to the mayor of the city of Toronto, and I assume to the council members of the city of Toronto as well.

I anticipate when this legislation passes, the city of Toronto will pass a resolution asking that that section of Pr5 be changed for the city of Toronto and, as indicated, the government will not oppose that request.

The member for Wentworth talked about some last-minute agreement with the mayor of the city of Toronto. I repeat, there was no last-minute agreement. The mayor of the city of Toronto simply wanted to have a face-to-face meeting so he could get from the ministry the explanation that had been given to the city before. The mayor was quite satisfied with the explanation. Therefore, as I say, he has indicated to me and I think he indicated by letter this afternoon, a copy of which I believe the member for Wentworth received, he is satisfied that the bill go forward in this form. He is satisfied and prepared to amend that section of Pr5 to broaden the definition and, as indicated, we will not oppose that definition.

Mr. M. Davidson: Did he have council approval for that letter?

Mr. Rotenberg: I indicated that has come from the mayor. I don’t know whether he has council approval or not; it is up to the members of the council. I haven’t always agreed with the mayor, but I think the mayor is one of those who has been pushing for the group homes. The mayor wants this to go through and I think the mayor, having assumed the responsibility of that office, also understands.

The mayor intends to take this to the council of the city of Toronto. Whether the council accepts that change in Pr5 is up to them. I don’t see why they wouldn’t because it implements what they want. As far as the rest of the legislation is concerned, it implements those matters which the city of Toronto wants to do in order to have this go forward.

The member for Bellwoods introduced something new into this debate, something I find quite surprising in the light of some of the other stands his party has taken in the past. In effect what the member for Bellwoods is saying is not that we should give permissive legislation to allow municipalities to have group homes, but that we should impose upon municipalities that they must allow group homes within their municipalities. He is saying we should change the whole philosophy of the Planning Act -- not that there should be local autonomy, not that municipalities should be able to pass their own zoning bylaws, but we as a government and as a legislature should impose those zoning bylaws on municipalities.

That is quite a change in philosophy. That is quite a change in their constant and continuing cry for local autonomy. That party has always seemed to be in support of residents’ groups, ratepayers’ groups, always saying we shouldn’t impose zoning, we should allow the local municipality to do it; we should allow public hearings, we should allow everything to go forward in an open, democratic manner; we should allow the municipalities to make up their own minds, we should allow the citizens of municipalities to participate in the planning process, we should allow citizens to have a voice in the changes of the zoning bylaw. But oh, no, not now. Now we should impose.

Mr. Speaker, there is a forum, there is a way, there is a method of appeal if a group in a municipality is not satisfied the municipality is doing the proper things in the Planning Act. There is a method of appeal if a group in a municipality is not satisfied with the way the zoning bylaws are being handled by the municipality.

In this case it happens too. If someone applies for rezoning for a group home and the municipality turns it down, I submit it is not the proper process of this Legislature to impose its will. The process we have set up is that person, that applicant, that group home or whatever, can then appeal the decision of the municipality to the tribunal which has been set up for this, the Ontario Municipal Board, which holds a hearing and can overrule a municipality. That is the way I think it should go. That is how there should be an appeal from a municipality that doesn’t act according to how some people wish in the zoning bylaw; this Legislature should not tell a municipality how to administer their own bylaws.

I am surprised, Mr. Speaker. These people adjust very easily. They have principles in certain things but if the case of the day doesn’t meet with their principles, they get a new set of principles and they always change their principles to meet the situation. I am really surprised that suddenly that party over there doesn’t want to have local autonomy, with the local municipality being able to administer their own bylaws.

[10: 15]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, who I think really wants to assist in this process of getting group homes, has raised a very vital question, which is, are we putting forward registration or licensing? I would assure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that it is registration, it is not licensing. Frankly one of the objections we had to the original Bill Pr5 from the city of Toronto was that even though the explanatory note said it was registration, it was in effect a form of licence in that it gave a certain discretionary power to the municipality not to issue a licence.

Section 3 on page eight in effect says that where an applicant meets the terms set out in the registration bylaw, the registrar cannot refuse registration, but I would point out to the member, to be fair, that this does not change the power of a municipality as far as group homes are concerned. The power to register by itself is not a further power to restrict group homes.

But, as I was indicating before to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, municipalities still have the power under the zoning bylaw to allow or to restrict or to put in conditions to allow group homes. This bill does not alter that zoning power. The member has to understand that a municipality can prohibit or restrict or conditionalize group homes under their zoning bylaws, not only with this legislation but under the existing Planning Act under the existing zoning bylaw.

I would also point out to him that as of now this province does license group homes for children and shortly will be licensing all group homes. One of the conditions of a licence from the province of Ontario is that the group home must conform to all bylaws of the municipality. So, although this legislation doesn’t change restrictions or doesn’t make it more difficult for a group home, it doesn’t make it any easier; it doesn’t change. I want to be very open about that.

One final point. Someone raised the problem about section 10 of the bill which allows benefits for members of council. I would point out this has nothing to do with errors and omissions insurance that someone raised, this only has to do with benefits for members of council.

I think I have covered the points that have been raised by the members opposite and I am pleased there will be second reading of this bill this evening, after which, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this go to committee of the whole House at some other time.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 180, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

Mr. Sterling: On November 15, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) introduced this bill on behalf of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and he outlined two reasons for the bill to be brought forward.

Basically, the bill takes out the termination date of the unified family court as at July 1, 1980. The two reasons given for this are, first, there are negotiations still going on between the federal and various provincial governments across our country regarding the appointment of judges to deal with family law matters which are now presently under the federal jurisdiction. Second, a proper evaluation of the unified family court has not been terminated or brought to a conclusion. I think a fair question that may be asked by members opposite is why?

The problem stems from the fact the Family Law Reform Act was brought in nine months after the unified family court was put in place. This presented a different atmosphere in which the unified family court carried on its function and statistics prior to that time were not really valid as to what happened later. It took a period of approximately six months before the kinks, as they might be termed, were worked out to get the courts into the use of the Family Law Reform Act.

It is felt by the Attorney General the project has been a success, but before prejudicing his decision he would like to receive the independent report being done on that court.

The other question that may be asked is does the bill as it is drafted in effect give an open-ended option to the Attorney General? Basically, the answer to that is if a decision is made at some future time to terminate the existence of the unified family court in Hamilton, it will be necessary to bring forth legislation to provide for the transfer of cases or the case loads pending in that court to another court. If a decision is made to expand the project, further legislation will also be necessary in order to do that.

This bill is merely a holding measure designed to preserve the existing situation until it is possible to make a firm decision on the future of the unified family court in Ontario.

I hope I have anticipated some of the questions and that I will receive the support of the members opposite on the bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the parliamentary assistant again giving us the reasons which were given initially, but I do have concerns about the fact this is left as open-ended as it is.

I am concerned that we are relieving what seems to me to be a pressure to get on with both the discussions with the federal government and also to bring forward a report which can truly assess the merits of this project. It would seem to me if the Attorney General feels this has been a useful exercise, as indeed I think most of us do, it would surely be better perhaps to substitute another date, rather than to leave it open-ended as has been suggested.

It may well be one has to bring back to the House some provision for those cases to be transferred, but nevertheless if the report is imminent, if the negotiations with the government in Ottawa are proceeding, it seems to me it is much more valuable to us in this House to have the opportunity to review the matter at a specific date, rather than this type of open-ended situation which we have before us.

I have very little more I can add to that, but I would like an explanation as to why one wouldn’t just extend the date to a specific date and let us in the Legislature again have an opportunity to question the status of any report and the status of those negotiations which I presume, as the parliamentary assistant suggests, are ongoing.

Mr. McClellan: A perpetual pilot project.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Warner: It is, as my colleague from Bellwoods says, a perpetual pilot project. As my colleague from St. George mentions, without a termination date in there this thing can go on and on and on. And if it is successful, as I suspect it is -- we have no reason to believe it isn’t a successful experiment or project -- how long will it be before other communities will have the benefit of a unified family court? How long will we wait for the evaluation?

I am not very happy with the bill being open-ended because I think it lets the government off the hook. I think it allows it, without any termination date, to just carry on its experiment for who knows how long.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

Mr. Warner: The minister has an insatiable thirst for providing work for lawyers, to study this and study that ad infinitum. We need some answers.

I believe the unified family court in Hamilton happens to be an extremely good project and a very important one, but I would appreciate the government deciding and letting us know when they are going to report, even an interim report. Let us know what the government’s judgement is on the court. I think one way to give us some idea as to when the minister is going to report back would have been to have had a termination date in the bill.

I won’t say any more. We do have three minutes; that might be sufficient time for the parliamentary assistant to respond to the questions raised.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, and by the critic of the Liberal Party, the member for St. George, is so eminently reasonable isn’t it possible for the parliamentary assistant to discuss with the Attorney General the possibility of at least putting an outside date in the bill so the clause would read, “This act is repealed on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor not later than ... ” and thus give himself some leeway, so there will be a date in there which will provide the kind of flexibility and will prevent its becoming, as my colleague from Bellwoods has said, a perpetual pilot project? It would seem to me that would be a very appropriate way to deal with the concerns we have. Otherwise, I suppose we will have to force an election on the issue.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, the report I referred to in my opening remarks will be available, it is expected, by July or August of next year. Maybe I was a little optimistic -- by September 1 of next year. We are sort of open on the date. It is nothing that has that much meaning to us. We will bring it back to the Legislature if that is the desire of the Legislature. But we were just trying to save the Legislature going through this particular process again.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.