Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I made a fairly complete statement before the introduction of the bill last week. I would be prepared to answer questions and comment upon statements honourable members might wish to make.

Mr. Epp: I am surprised the minister doesn’t have a statement, but I appreciate the complexity of the bill and the amount of time left for us to finish a number of bills, not only this evening but in the time remaining until the Christmas recess, which should start in a week and a half or thereabouts.

As is probably clear to the minister and everyone in this House, we obviously plan to support this bill. There are, though, a number of points I would like to make.

First of all, it is quite clear this bill supports the principle that is very evident in our country, whereby the wealthy areas give support to the less wealthy areas. Revenue is collected at the provincial level and this is then disbursed to the 837 municipalities in the province.

Many municipalities will receive extra revenue through the resource equalization grant, but many will not. While a municipality which has a per capita assessment of somewhere around $10,650 or more will not receive the resource equalization grant, municipalities which have less than that will receive 60 per cent of the difference. Although there may be good reasons the figure of 60 per cent was chosen, we feel probably a greater portion of this could go to some of the less wealthy municipalities.

I understand the background for the resource equalization grant dates back to 1975 when the former Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. McKeough, tried to consolidate a number of revenue-providing programs. This was done within the resource equalization grant. I thought this was a good move in 1975 and I still think it is a good move, because it helps the less able municipalities. It obviously establishes a greater sense of fairness for those municipalities which lack the industry and commerce that exist in many of the wealthier municipalities.

The point I would like to raise is I think there should be a long-term commitment to this program. Some of the municipalities are uncertain of what they are going to receive from year to year. If the government were in a position to give a commitment of greater certainty of the amount of money municipalities will be receiving, the latter would be better able to plan their future programs and their future commitments to their own citizens on a municipal basis.

I notice we’re deviating slightly from what we have had in previous years in that before, the lower-tier municipalities received the grants and they in turn provided them to the upper or the regional municipalities. In this bill, I notice the province is committing their portion directly to the upper-tier municipalities. In other words, the lower-tier municipalities no longer play that intermediary role. I am wondering whether this is another step in the direction of deemphasizing the importance of the lower-tier municipalities.

If that is the case, I very much regret it because I think it is the lower-tier municipalities which help to provide the base for this province so that we can see from that base we’re going to have a fairly good future, providing, as the minister knows that we can continue to get our oil from Alberta.

I want to draw to the minister’s attention a letter sent to the provincial government and agencies from a constituent of mine, dated November 2. This particular resident lives in Breslau, in the township of Woolwich. I realize the minister receives a lot of mail and he may not have had a chance to get to this particular letter, but one of this constituent’s concerns as a taxpayer was that he pays X number of dollars from which he figures that with a tax of somewhere around the vicinity of $600, some of that would go to the city of Kitchener.

He cites an example of $321 going to the city of Kitchener for a municipal levy, compared to $175.56 which would go to the municipality of Woolwich township and $151 to the city of Kitchener for a regional levy. Of that same amount of money, if he lived in the township of Woolwich, he would pay $225.25 to the region.

Although he is receiving the same amount of regional services as a person living in Kitchener, as a Woolwich resident he would be paying $225.25 compared to a resident in the city of Kitchener who would pay $151. He felt that as a resident of the same region, he should not be paying any more as a rural resident than a person living in an urban municipality pays for those same regional services.

He also cited an example where he would have to pay $442 to the city of Kitchener for the educational levy if he lived in that municipality, compared to $668.94 if he lived in the township of Woolwich. He was again penalized for living in a rural municipality in order to have the same kind of educational services as a person living in the city of Kitchener.

I would think those same kinds of statistics would hold true for other municipalities within the region of Waterloo, or in the regions of Peel, Halton, Niagara or Haldimand-Norfolk, or wherever one lives. A person living in a rural municipality would pay a greater amount of money for educational and regional services than they would be paying for the same kind of services obtained in an urban municipality and I think this is unfair.

When the province went to a regional form of government people were promised equity, fairness and so on. They have been waiting in my own regional municipality for six or seven years. They’ve been waiting in the regional municipality of Niagara for 10 years. They’ve been waiting in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for about 10 years and they’re still not getting it.

I would hope the minister would seriously look at this since he’s one of the senior ministers of the crown and one of the senior ministers who has clout in the cabinet as House leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It’s such a long title that I think he would carry the weight to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to bring some kind of equity into this particular system. I would like to obtain from the minister tonight some kind of commitment to do what he can in the ministry to bring a fairness to the people of the region of Waterloo as well as to the people of other regions across the province

With that, I would again reiterate that we plan on supporting this bill as it is printed. We look forward to the minister’s making some kind of commitment that he will look at this problem on a long-term basis rather than doing it on a very short-term, ad hoc kind of basis every year.

Mr. Isaacs: First, I would like to welcome the minister to one of our debates on a bill concerning municipal affairs. Unless my memory fails me, this is the first time the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has personally brought a municipal bill to this House since I’ve been responsible for municipal affairs for this party.

Having welcomed the minister, I have to say I don’t know why he came before us today with a bill of this kind. The effect of this bill, as the minister is well aware, is to undo some of the problems that were caused by the new equalization factors published back in the summer.

When speaking to the PMLC on November 30, the minister went before that august committee and said, “I’m happy to provide you with information on next year’s provincial transfers and would also like to give details of the plan for modifying the grant and apportionment effects of the new assessment equalization factors.”

That’s what this bill is all about. It’s to modify a problem the government created because it didn’t understand what it was doing when it brought in the new assessment equalization factors. It’s to tone down the impact that could see residential and farm communities having to pay a tremendous percentage more in property taxes because of a reduction in grants and because of the changes in apportionment. It seems to me that property taxes are becoming a more and more complex issue and an issue that is more and more of great concern to the people of this province.

I want to make a prediction that the problem is going to get worse, even with this bill. By the end of next year, we will see a situation, if indeed we are still here in this parliament, where the people of this province are prepared to implement a proposition 13 in order to deal with the problem of property taxes, except that in Ontario we don’t allow that and we will have to deal with it the other way.

We will have to deal with it by going to the people and telling them how the government has failed them in dealing with property taxes. It’s failed them by dealing with those taxes on a piecemeal basis, where in the summer it brings in new factors and in December it brings in a bill to undo the effect of those new factors.

We will go to the people and we will see a change in government so that we can see a progressive move in property taxes; so that we can see a transfer away from that form of revenue for the province and for municipalities; and so that we can put in place a property tax system that is fair and equitable and is based on the ability of municipalities and property tax payers to pay, rather than sponging them of every available thing.

[8:15]

Mr. Speaker, the timing of this bill is absolutely incredible to me. On November 30 the announcement was made to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, following by a couple of days a letter that had been sent out to municipal treasurers. Almost a full week later the announcement was made in this House and the bill was introduced.

It is impossible to deal with the very serious problem of property taxes in the time that remains available to us before this bill takes effect on January 1 of the new year. We cannot continue with the system we have in place now. We cannot continue to deal with property tax changes at so late a date in the year preceding the municipalities’ fiscal year. We cannot continue to muddle through so that municipal governments never know what is coming next and never have an idea as to how much they are going to have to raise locally and how much they will be obtaining from the province.

This would be an ideal bill to send to committee so that the municipalities could come before us to tell us what they think of it and what they think of the grant-sharing system it puts in place. We already know the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is so strongly opposed to the system the minister is implementing for 1980 that it has withdrawn from PMLC. We know from the demonstration last week by the group from Frontenac county that even the small rural municipalities realize there is a very serious problem in this government’s handling of the property tax issue. We know that nowhere in this province will you find people in municipal government who are content with the property tax system.

The timing has a second serious implication. Many municipal governments have already struck their spending estimates for next year. They are already either in committee or even before council for last-minute changes. Those estimates exist because this is not an election year and councils have had an opportunity to work on their budgets and have estimates in place. What is going to happen when they manage to get through the very complex calculations and find out what the impact of this bill will be on their municipalities?

What is going to happen is that they will cut in the only places they can cut with such incredibly short notice, the social service programs, the programs for senior citizens, the recreational programs and cultural programs, things that should not be cut, that should be considered as part of the overall program of the municipal council; and yet they have no option because they are not enabled to plan.

Mr. J. Johnson: What is your option?

Mr. Isaacs: I am interested to hear the comments as to what the activities of municipal governments should be. If the member is suggesting that programs for senior citizens and programs for children are the things that should be cut, as I heard him say --

Mr. J. Johnson: I am asking you to suggest what should be done. What should be cut?

Mr. Isaacs: Nothing should be cut. The grants that are provided from the honourable member’s government to the municipal councils should be in place in sufficient time for the municipalities to plan their programs properly, instead of having to make the last-minute cuts caused by this kind of last- minute legislation.

There have been explanatory meetings held for municipal staffs right across this province, and at those meetings the municipal staffs and any elected officials that wanted to attend -- up to a maximum of three persons per municipality -- have been shown the form for calculating their grants for 1980. They have not been told what their grant will be. They have been given an eight-page, closely typed form, far more horrendous than any income tax form that anyone here has ever seen, in order to calculate their grants, and it is going to be several weeks yet before municipalities are even able to wade their way through that.

If we did not proceed with this bill, if we went ahead under the system of unconditional grants that existed for 1979 and worked reasonably well for 1979 when we did not have the new equalization factors, if we went ahead without this bill, the burden placed on some municipalities because of tremendous cuts in provincial grants would be intolerable. The residents and businesses, particularly small businesses, of those municipalities simply would not be able to afford to pay the property taxes to keep the municipality alive and functioning. So we have no option but to look at this bill in that light.

The bill puts in place a formula, not directly but through ministerial discretion, for calculating the unconditional grants that municipal councils will receive next year. Wading through the material in the bill leads me to recall that when one was in school doing science experiments and didn’t get the answer one wanted, one introduced a thing generally known as the fudge factor. The fudge factor was put there in order to adjust the experimental results one got to give the answer one needed in order to pass. That’s what this bill is. It is a fudge factor to deal with the equalization factors that don’t work properly, in order to give a system of grants that will pass, at least for 1980.

Mr. J. Johnson: And you are the fudge expert.

Mr. Isaacs: The member for Waterloo North talked about a long-term commitment. Yes, a long-term commitment is needed so that municipalities are guaranteed an amount of revenue that increases as costs increase and so they will understand that that figure will be there from one year to the next. They do not need what is contained in this bill as a long-term commitment.

It is my understanding from comments made by the minister and his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) that we will see some kind of new system for 1981. Some days in this House it seems to me that new system might actually be something we could sit down and talk about, perhaps even welcome. On other days, particularly in the last 10 days or so, some of the comments have suggested to me that it is just going to be another series of fudge factors. That is not what we need. We need a proper review of grants, a proper review of the property tax system; we need something that is fair and equitable for the people and businesses of this province.

This bill today is the only way to escape a very serious problem created by the government. We will be supporting this bill on second reading but we will ask that it go to committee of the whole House where we will introduce an amendment that makes it very clear that we believe the program proposed in this bill should run for one year only so the government realizes it has to come in with a new program in time to be considered by this House, in time to receive response from municipal government, in time for everyone across this province to understand where we are going with property taxes and in time to be implemented for 1981.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made.

It has been drawn to our attention that with this bill we are changing from paying the resource equalization grant to just the lower-tier municipalities, to paying to the lower- and upper-tier municipalities. As I am sure my friend realizes, the practice heretofore has been to pay the lower tier and have the lower tier credit a certain amount to the upper tier, be it a county or a region. The process now is to make a little clearer exactly where that money is going and to pay the resource equalization grant to the upper-tier municipality as well as to the lower tier, then the upper-tier municipality will take that into account in apportioning its costs to the lower tier. It’s really to make it a little clearer and to make it obvious to everyone that the upper-tier municipality is actually benefiting from the resource equalization grant also.

In regard to the matter raised about the problem in the region of Waterloo, I would like to say I certainly can sympathize with that. I think we have all had that kind of problem brought to our attention and we would all like to see it solved. Perhaps the problem will only be solved when we arrive at some completely workable and true property tax reform with market value assessment. All I can say to my friend now is certainly those are the reforms I want to see brought in, so those kinds of differences will not occur and people with the same kind of home in a region be they in a rural area --

Mr. Lawlor: You have been wanting to say it for an awfully long time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, we are still working and in the fullness of time I have every confidence we can come close to solving that particular problem.

I just want to say I was very interested in the comments of the member for Wentworth because I think his comments tended to be a little more negative and I wasn’t sure from his comments whether he really wanted to support this bill, although he finally came around to saying he would support it in principle. I think he realizes he wouldn’t want his party to be responsible for not having this bill passed.

First, I would say I think while we would all like the information to be made available a little sooner, I think the municipalities themselves would rather have us take a little more time to prepare that information and to prepare the details of our transfer payments than have some information earlier and perhaps not have it as complete or as full as it should be.

Under this year’s transfer payments, we are transferring, in the resource equalization grant, a fairly substantial amount of money. In the total unconditional grants it seems to me we are transferring something very close to about 10 per cent over last year.

It is very interesting; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario decided it wouldn’t participate in the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee because we couldn’t come to any agreement on a formula and yet we’re probably transferring as much money or more this year than we would have under the formula. I know the members have heard the statement made, “We would rather have the formula and less money.” It’s a great statement to make after the fact. I am not sure anybody in the municipal side really believes that.

The fact remains that this government, notwithstanding our restraint program, is transferring a sizeable amount of money to municipalities and we are doing it under this legislation with a set of modifications which I think take out some of the real inequities the new equalization factors present.

We could argue all night as to whether we should have brought in those factors, whether they are correct factors and whether they are calculated in a proper way. The fact remains, those factors created an inequity. They put a burden on the rural areas of this province and took it off the urban areas. They created an inequity by taking certain assessment and certain tax powers off the commercial and industrial areas and put it on residential -- inequities we couldn’t allow to happen and which will be modified by this bill.

I would like to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement to this House and to the PMLC, it is our intention between now and July when the Assessment Act provides that my colleague, the Minister of Revenue, must bring in new assessment factors for next year, to have a system that will be more in line with what I think every member of this House wants and the municipalities want and that system will be developed with municipal expertise. Municipal people will be working on it --

Mr. Conway: July will surely be the millennium.

Hon. Mr. Wells: By July it will be here. If the member would like we can all be sitting here in the House waiting with bated breath to receive that new system.

Mr. Conway: We’ll be here; you may not be.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think we will be here just as we are today. I have every confidence that will be it. I will be most happy to be here in July, as I am sure my friend will be. We will tell the member then exactly how the new system will work.

Mr. Cooke: What about the Windsor situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Windsor situation is the other side of the coin. The very wealthy municipality of Windsor --

Mr. Cooke: I only wish.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I had a good meeting with the mayor of Windsor the other day. While Windsor again isn’t going to get the whole pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I think Windsor will find it is going to be fairly treated.

Mr. Cooke: Are we going to get our $8 million?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they are not going to get their $8 million, but they will get at least as much as they got last year.

Mr. Cooke: Less than $8 million is not fair.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With those few words, I would like to say I appreciate the support from both parties for this bill. I would be happy to have it have second reading now. We can go into committee presently to consider the clauses in the bill.

Mr. J. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the members in the House would be interested to know that just a few minutes ago the government’s kissing cousins in Ottawa placed an excise tax of 25 cents a gallon on gasoline and 17 cents on diesel fuel.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is a bill to accomplish something the regional municipality of Peel and the municipality of Mississauga have agreed to and both would like. Unfortunately, it appeared earlier in a version that was not acceptable to all the parties.

This bill to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act is now a version which is acceptable to both the municipality of Mississauga and the region of Peel. What it does is allow the local municipalities in the region of Peel to carry out the function of industrial promotion. It still preserves for the upper municipality, which heretofore has had the sole responsibility of industrial promotion, the power to carry on promotion of the region in a variety of ways which a region would wish to carry out, yet, as I understand is the wish of the region, not carry out direct industrial promotion. In other words, it preserves the region’s right to carry out promotion of the region and it transfers to the lower-tier municipalities in the region of Peel the power to carry out industrial promotion.

Mr. Epp: I am certainly grateful to my colleague, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed), for drawing this very important matter to the attention of this House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a principle of this bill.

Mr. Bolan: It is a principle of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Epp: I am glad to be able to speak on Bill 195 which the province is bringing forward now, after withdrawing Bill 158 which also dealt with the municipality of Peel. I was surprised to learn, in dealing with the compendium and with the literature the minister and the government of this province have put before us, nowhere was there reference to Bill 158, which the government withdrew only a month ago and which dealt with this very same issue. The government has obviously done a flip-flop on this matter because it withdrew the bill after the parliamentary assistant to the minister made a motion in this House, which was supported by the government and the NDP, to withdraw that section. I’m very surprised that only a short time later it has brought in another bill which deals with the same subject.

Obviously, what is before us here is the request by the regional municipality of Peel and the area municipality of Mississauga to give to the various area municipalities the right to publicize or advertise lands which they have for industrial development. The bill is written slightly differently from the other one. In fact, I almost think they’re trying to mislead us a little because when you compare the two bills, it’s a little more --

Mr. Gregory: Have you lost your place?

Mr. Epp: No, I didn’t lose my place. It’s deliberately more inclusive in that an area municipality can publicize these lands as industrial, agricultural, business, educational, residential or vacation centres, whereas the regional municipality can publicize them as agricultural, business, educational, residential or vacation centre lands. In the other bill we referred more specifically to industrial land and in this one we give the impression that both are treated equally, but in fact they’re not. For publicity purposes that is the case but for ownership it is not the case. In other words, the local municipality does not have in this bill, as it had in the other bill which the government then tried to amend, the right to own industrial land. This is where the change comes and this is why the government withdrew the former bill.

That’s most unfortunate; however, we have no particular choice in this. The local municipality and the region have indicated -- and particularly the local municipality -- that, although they would like to own land, they will not have the opportunity to own land because the province will not go that extra step. Mr. Speaker, I know you’re concerned about this matter because it concerns a very important principle for this province; that is, local autonomy for the municipalities. The government is not going far enough in this particular piece of legislation. We’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea because we’re going to have to support this piece of legislation and give the municipality half a loaf rather than a whole loaf, unfortunately.

Without much ado, we will support this bill. We do regret the fact that the government hasn’t permitted local municipalities to own industrial land, nevertheless we’ll have to wait another year or two before we can give them that prerogative, that particular legal right which they obviously should have. Other municipalities have it. In my own regional municipality of Waterloo, local municipalities can own industrial land and can build on it, expand on it, advertise and promote anything they wish. In other words, there is competition within the region between the various local municipalities. That, I think, is healthy, wholesome and good if we believe in a free-enterprise system.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, this bill somehow seems to have had a long and tortuous history in this House, all of which has taken place this fall. As the member for Waterloo North indicated, we first of all dealt with this matter when we were dealing with the Act respecting Certain Regional Municipalities. At that time there was an obvious flaw in wording in the bill and the parliamentary assistant brought in an amendment that was designed to clean up that wording. That amendment was defeated because we do not support the principle of this bill and because my colleagues on the right joined with us in opposing the amendment. Following that defeat, the minister withdrew the section of the bill entirely, which was appropriate because the wording was so bad, and came back with another bill. That one stayed on the Order Paper for a while and was then withdrawn and replaced by this bill.

It is important that we look at what this bill is trying to do and that we look at it in the context of the entire province of Ontario. I don’t blame the regional municipality of Peel or the city of Mississauga for seeking what this bill enables them to do: that is, have three separate industrial development commissions instead of one, or to apportion the cost of one or more industrial development commissions unevenly across the entire region by making them a lower-tier responsibility rather than an upper-tier responsibility.

I don’t blame them for doing that, because with the financial situation municipalities are facing, they are going out to seek all available industrial development. But in so doing they are competing with each other for the very limited amount of growth happening in this province. And they are doing so because it is the only way they can bring anything in the way of decent tax increases to their own municipalities.

But to allow free enterprise between governments seems to me to be the height of absurdity. This bill seems to contradict everything regional government in Peel was put in place to try to achieve when those governments are within one region and when regional government was established to enable municipalities to work together towards a common goal rather than compete with one another.

We have a very serious problem with industrial development at the present time and we have that problem because it is completely out of the provincial government’s control. Municipalities are competing; they are putting in sewers and services and all the incentives they are allowed to put in to attract development and in doing so they are costing taxpayers right across this province a considerable amount of money. They are ensuring that the development of this province in an industrial and commercial sense will be disorderly rather than orderly.

An official plan is needed for Ontario. We need to designate where industrial growth should be encouraged to go, where it should be permitted to go and where it should not be permitted to go, except, perhaps, for growth of existing industry or for small business. We believe the provincial government having put that in place then has a responsibility to promote not one municipality, not one region, but the entire province and to put in place a climate that ensures jobs will be provided for the citizens of this province and that the economy of the province will be built to a state far better than that which is the result of 27 years of Tory rule.

The bill is moving in entirely the wrong direction. It is furthering the competition. It is putting the municipalities within Peel in an incredible situation where they will or could be competing with each other. It will be encouraging them to compete with Metropolitan Toronto, drawing industry from Metropolitan Toronto at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.

We cannot support the bill and we would urge the government to go in the reverse direction, putting in place a provincial plan and an industrial development strategy for this province that properly serves all taxpayers instead of allowing an absurd system of competition between the municipal levels of government. We will be opposing the bill.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is appropriate that I say a word or two since this bill directly concerns the riding I represent.

Mr. Epp: Part of it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I wish certain members would not heckle me. I’m not going to hurt them. We didn’t even call for a vote because there are no members in the House.

Mr. Nixon: You should, you know; there are only three to one.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: We’re being nice.

I would like to comment on this because of some of the comments of the member for Wentworth who obviously knows nothing about Mississauga. He wouldn’t know Mississauga if he tripped over it. He really has no knowledge about the industrial situation in Mississauga or in Peel.

[8:45]

Before there was ever even a region of Peel or a region of Hamilton-Wentworth or anywhere else, Mississauga always had a history of being very successful in attracting industrial growth within its borders. I know that’s in total opposition to the member’s philosophy. The member feels the provincial government or some other government somewhere, some power on high, should impose industrial development on areas. I firmly believe it is the right of a municipality itself to select whether it wants industrial growth, rather than have a provincial government, through a so-called province-wide official plan, impose that industrial growth on it. I don’t feel that way.

Mr. Warner: You don’t believe in planning.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think the member would find that the region of Peel, and particularly the city of Mississauga, is probably the most highly-planned area, including the one we’re in at the present time, of any in Ontario. They have an official plan for the region of Peel which has been submitted to the provincial government. Industrial growth in the region of Peel is planned. They’re doing very well, thank you very much. I think they will do even better. The only thing that is going to interfere is if people with attitudes like that of the member destroy that.

We’re quite happy to have growth promoted in Mississauga. The region of Peel is the second-level government body of three successful communities -- Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. They’re all Tory, by the way, which is unusual. I guess that’s because they’re successful.

As a matter of fact, we have even gone so far as to determine what the people there wanted. That’s something the member’s party never does. They don’t worry about what the people want. We have found that the region of Peel, the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton and the town of Caledon want precisely what this bill is going to do.

I would be really and truly delighted if the members opposite divided on this. I would love to have them on record the way they truly believe. I don’t think they do truly believe anything. They flip-flop all over the place. I would be pleased if the members divided on this. I would love to take it home to Mayor McCallion and those people in the region of Peel. There is the odd deluded soul who sometimes agrees with their philosophy. There are very few of them, but even in the region of Peel -- Tory Peel -- there is the odd New Democrat. They are hard to find. We try to jail them when we find them.

If the members would divide on this, I would love to have it on record.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my colleague from Mississauga East has put the case very well as to why we want this bill. I would just like to correct a couple of things that have been mentioned during this debate. I’m not even going to get into the whole argument about this hogwash about an official plan for Ontario and the dictatorial placement of industry and so forth.

I notice my friend and colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere nodding his head and saying that’s great. He should do that when he comes out and talks with the industrial commissioner in Scarborough who is very vigorously promoting our municipality of Scarborough, as I believe he should and as I’m sure he wants it promoted, just as I want it promoted. I see nothing unhealthy in the borough of Scarborough promoting and the city of Mississauga promoting industrial growth and industry coming to this province and finding that area it wants to settle in.

I want to say the city of Mississauga does not want the power, as the region has, to buy and hold industrial lands.

Mr. Epp: They’ve said they probably wouldn’t get it if they asked for it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. That’s not right. That’s absolutely wrong. I asked the mayor if that’s what they wanted and she said they did not want to hold industrial land. They wanted the region to have that. Let’s get that very straight. All they want is the power to carry out industrial promotion, to have an industrial commissioner and so forth.

We’re doing exactly what they want. We’re not denying them anything. We are supporting local autonomy.

Mr. Epp: Would you give it to them if they asked for it tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would certainly consider it, if that’s what they wanted, but they don’t want it. They want it left the way it is.

I have two letters here written to my parliamentary assistant. The first one is from the mayor of Mississauga, saying she has looked over the bill and both her solicitor and the solicitor for the region are happy with the draft. The other one is from Frank Bean, the chairman, saying: “I appreciate your co-operation and that of the minister in providing an opportunity to comment on the draft legislation. I have discussed the draft legislation with the mayors of Brampton and Caledon and we find it acceptable. I would appreciate being advised of the progress of the bill through the Legislature.”

Mrs. Campbell: That sure is great enthusiasm.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend from St. George says, “That’s great enthusiasm.” What it is is local autonomy. With this bill, we’re doing exactly what the local area wants.

Mrs. Campbell: You won’t give them what they want.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Why does the member for St. George say we won’t give them what they want? We’re giving them exactly what they want. They do not want the right to buy and hold industrial land, they want the right to promote it. They’re getting that right in this bill. I suggest that all members of the House who believe in true, local, municipal autonomy will vote with us on this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, do you have any comments to start with?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does any member wish to speak to any particular section of the bill? The member for Wentworth.

On section 1:

Mr. Isaacs: I have an amendment to section 1. I have copies for the minister and the critics of the Liberal Party. Its intent is the same as the amendment I gave them earlier today but the Legislative Counsel recommended minor changes in wording.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 9(1) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “in each year” in the first line and substituting in lieu thereof “in 1980.”

Mr. Isaacs: The amendment makes it very clear that this act deals with 1980 only and the authority for unconditional grants, if this amendment is approved tonight as I expect it to be, will expire at the end of 1980. We believe the current mess in property taxes and unconditional grants has to be resolved in a very major way for 1981.

In his comments earlier the minister indicated that he indeed was prepared to look at bringing in changes to the system of grants and to the system of equalization factors when he brings in the new factors in the summer of 1980. That may not be early enough, given that municipal councils are not yet involved in a process to deal with new grant components. They are not yet involved in a process to review the property tax system we have. They are not yet involved in a process to ensure that the distribution of grants and the apportionment of costs between municipalities will be fair in 1981, where it is unfair in 1980.

I find it strange that the minister is promising the new system will be with us by the summer of 1980, when no one seems to know what is going on at the present time. It is inconceivable to everyone to whom I have spoken that the property tax system can be revised in time for an announcement in July 1980.

We would certainly like to see the work was going on. We would certainly like to see municipal government being involved in it and we would like to have an indication of the direction the government is taking. They have failed very miserably to provide an indication of that direction.

The minister earlier referred to the formula that was requested by the AMO and over which they withdrew from the PMLC. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the people who are representing AMO on PMLC are in general people I would describe as being in support of the government. It must give the minister very great concern when his own friends from the municipal level of government are treating him so badly.

We believe this amendment will ensure that municipalities will have a guarantee of a new system of raising revenues and of receiving grants for 1981. We believe that if the bill is left without the amendment, there is every possibility we will stumble along through 1980, into 1981 and into a property tax mess that is intolerable, not just to the government, but to every citizen of the province.

That is why we see the amendment as being so important. It provides the guarantee the people of the province need that a new system will be in place for 1981. I want to back that up very quickly, Mr. Chairman, with a comment that if indeed, as the minister has suggested, we are still here and in exactly this form in July 1980 and possibly even later in 1980, then we will not be prepared to accept another bill in the same form as Bill 194 for 1981. We will refuse at that time to go along with the shenanigans of the government in the property tax field and we will turn to the people and ask them to decide whether they want a responsible approach to property taxes or whether they want the kind of mess contained in this bill and in everything that goes along with it.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment limits the effect of the bill with regard to unconditional grants to one year, and I very much hope the minister will accept this amendment as a show of good faith to the municipal level of government and to the people of this province in regard to his commitment to bring in a new system of grants and a new system of apportionment for 1981.

Mr. Cooke: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to support this amendment and I want to support it for the reason that in the short debate I heard on second reading of this bill there was discussion about the municipalities that would have a shift in taxation and would get less money from the government, were the resource equalization grants properly distributed.

In my home town of Windsor we have been taken advantage of by this government for a number of years now; I think the total amount the provincial government now owes us is close to $60 million. This year alone it would be $8 million and the minister says we may get as much as $3 million of the $8 million they owe us. That simply isn’t acceptable to the people of Windsor.

[9:00]

I hope the minister will accept this amendment. Next year my party will not support this kind of Band-Aid treatment for the property tax system in this province.

Property tax is a very regressive form of tax. We get regressive taxes from the provincial government and, of course, tonight we heard from the federal government which is implementing former Liberal policies and further regressive taxes through the increase of the excise tax. We get them from the federal government and we get them from the provincial government. The people of this province and the people of Windsor are sick and tired of it. They won’t take it again.

The one-year extension is acceptable to the people in this party; it is not completely acceptable to me, but none the less, my caucus has accepted it. Next year you can be sure we won’t support that kind of ridiculous legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to comment on this amendment. It has been suggested that acceptance of this amendment would be a show of good faith to the municipalities of this province, that, I think it was phrased, “we mean what we say.” I think the municipalities of this province already know we mean what we say when we bring in something that will be more effective and more useful to them next July when the new factors come in.

I just want to say that I believe, Mr. Chairman, acceptance of this amendment would cause a deterioration of a situation which my friend has already pointed out. He is really saying: Vote for an amendment tonight that says to the municipalities that after the year 1980 there will no longer be any more resource equalization grants. That is a lot of nonsense. You are taking another part of the whole municipal unconditional grant structure and saying there are going to be no more REGs. The section you are amending is the general section that has been in the Unconditional Grants Act since 1975 and which provides the general authority to pay the resource equalization grants.

The problem we have this year is not the resource equalization grants, it is the equalization factors and how they are used in the computation of the resource equalization grants. In fact, as far as municipalities are concerned, the use of those factors, while it is important and certainly it is to the resource equalization grant, is even 10 times more important to the calculation of the general legislative grant.

We are talking about roughly $150 million transferred to municipalities in resource equalization grants provided for under this legislation, a policy of this government since 1975. We are talking about over $2 billion transferred by the Ministry of Education in the general legislative grant and we are talking about procedures in this bill today to modify the bad impact of the new equalization factors on the resource equalization grant.

To suggest we are not going to have a resource equalization grant in this province after next year is nonsense. It would further confuse the municipalities of this province if that were to happen. Therefore, I have to tell my friend there is just no way we could accept that amendment. We believe the resource equalization grant, even in the new system that we bring in, may be part of the total package of unconditional grants which we are working towards and even hope to increase for the municipalities.

I am afraid we can’t accept that amendment because we believe resource equalization grants should remain -- at least in the minds of the municipalities and in the minds of the people of this province, if not in the minds of the members of the New Democratic Party -- as part of the grant package of this province until we are ready to replace them.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I guess I can clearly indicate we cannot support this amendment for the simple reason that in trying to take one step forward it is taking about 27 steps backwards.

I think what the municipalities want in this province -- and I was a municipal councillor for almost 10 years -- is a permanent legislative commitment as to the kinds of grants and the extent of those grants they will receive from the province. By suggesting that by limiting this particular act to 1980 and forcing the government of this province to come back to the representatives in this Legislative Assembly next year to ask for additional moneys to give the municipalities for 1981 is like asking the municipalities to get on their knees in front of the province every year.

I believe, and this party believes, that we need a long-term commitment, something we have been after this province for many, many months, both in conditional and unconditional grants. They are not receiving that; they are receiving part of that in the resource equalization grants. There is no way that this party, the Liberal Party of the province, which hopes and plans to and certainly anticipates forming the government of this province within the next 12 to 24 months, will in any way support a suggestion that we go on a stopgap, one-year measure of paying the municipalities.

So we cannot support this particular amendment. When the opportunity arises we intend to go on a much longer-term basis.

I want to correct a perception left earlier by the minister in dealing with this particular matter in resource equalization when he said in December 1979 that is the earliest they can really present the transfer payments, the resource equalization formula for the municipalities. I might point out to him that his predecessor, on September 16, 1977, announced the transfer payments to the various municipalities. I would hope he would put pressure on those who are responsible for delaying this measure. Because of the equalization factors there may be some reason for having it somewhat delayed this year, but I would hope they plan on having it announced much earlier next year so that municipalities can plan a little earlier.

Mr. Charlton: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to the Liberal member who just spoke. We have no quarrel with resource equalization grants and I think the minister is well aware of that. We are unfortunately forced to deal with the bill that is in front of us here. We are forced to deal with the situation; for 10 years we have been in an ever-worsening situation.

The minister made some remark in his comments about confidence on the part of the municipalities. There isn’t very much confidence there at all. The fact that if this amendment were to pass it would put a limiting factor of one year on the section that deals with resource equalization grants would in no way prohibit this government and this minister, when they come back next July and announce their new and complete package, from again including this kind of a grant structure if they feel it is an appropriate part of this new package they are going to bring in.

I speak now to the members of the Liberal caucus. The intent of this amendment is to try and deal with a situation we discussed at length last week when the Liberals referred the assessment bill to the general government committee. It concerned the ad hoc nature of what has been going on in property taxation and municipal finance. The Liberals at that point expressed a very, very sincere desire to get on with the job and straighten out the mess and make things clear to municipalities and fair to them.

This government has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt -- and we would like to believe the government but they won’t sit down and talk to us effectively about the direction in which they are heading, the kinds of things they are looking at. They leave us in the dark; they leave the municipalities in the dark. They don’t answer questions when we ask them except to say, “We are going to do something new in 1981.” They expect us to have blind-faith confidence, when the record shows quite clearly that that confidence is not warranted. We spent 10 or 12 years trying to have confidence in a government we thought set out to implement property tax reform in this province. We haven’t got it and the problem we are having this year is a result of the fact that we do not have property tax reform.

I say to my Liberal colleagues and to the member for Waterloo North who just spoke, I suggested when we discussed this whole situation in committee last week and I suggest again now that the only way we are going to get to the long-term solution is to start forcing some of the issues instead of hiding from them.

Mr. Isaacs: I want to make a couple of comments in support of the amendment and in response to the comments made by the minister and the Liberal critic.

The member for Waterloo North, on behalf of the Liberal Party, talked about setting in place rather than providing a one-year, stopgap measure. I want to suggest to him through you, Mr. Chairman, that if what is contained in this bill is what the Liberal Party wants to set in place as the system for paying unconditional grants, then the people of this province are going to hurt very, very badly when the new equalization factors come in in July of next year. If the system this bill proposes is allowed to remain in place for 1981 with simply a new round of equalization factors, the transfer of burden to residential and farm communities in general is going to become very serious indeed.

We are suggesting that we deal with this as an emergency measure. It has been brought to us by the government at the very last minute and with inadequate consultation with the municipalities -- in fact, essentially no consultation -- and with no real opportunity to get to the roots of the property tax problem. We are suggesting we treat this as an emergency measure rather than setting in place a system that no municipal council and no taxpayer -- if we could find a way to explain this to at least a percentage of the taxpayers -- in this province wants as a long-term program. We are suggesting we guarantee it is a one-year program and then introduce and deal with a new system for 1981.

The minister suggested perhaps we didn’t understand the impact of this amendment and that it would mean no resource equalization grants for 1981. We understand that very clearly, but we are fed up with promises from the government, fed up with hearing that there will be a new system next year. “Let’s just postpone it one more year,” they say, as they did with market value assessment in the bill discussed just a few weeks ago. That was a one-year postponement.

We are saying let’s deal with a one-year situation and have an assurance that the government must come back to this House to deal with grants for 1981. This mechanism is the easiest, simplest and clearest way to do that. Municipal governments and taxpayers will understand very clearly that we are suggesting to them that, of course, grants will continue, but that there will be a new program in place for 1981, as the minister has promised, and this House will have the opportunity to debate that new system and make sure it is put in place.

I want to make one more remark with regard to the idea that this bill is going to be here for years and is going to be a continuing system for paying municipalities. The very section we are amending contains a description of how to calculate the resource equalization grant and says, “the amount of grant shall be based ... on the proportion that 60 per cent of such deficiency of equalized assessment per capita bears to the prescribed standard equalized assessment per capital as applied to the net levy of the lower-tier municipality.” I hope the minister understood that, because that’s what is in his bill. The problem is that any change to the equalization factors next year will automatically require that that section be amended, because that section is dependent on the total amount of money available and the total effect of all the equalization factors.

[9:15]

That 60 per cent is not a number that is geared to the particular philosophy about providing grants. It’s a number that arises out of the emergency situation we have and enables the government to use the amount of money it has allocated to resource equalization grants to provide municipalities with a buffer against the effects of the new equalization factors plus an annual increment for increases in the cost of living.

So that particular section will have to be amended anyway for 1981, Mr. Chairman, but we want to be sure that the whole matter is looked at again in detail and that we do not just have a government amendment that says that in section 9(1) of the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act you change 60 per cent to 62.3 per cent. We want not just to deal with that one tiny number, but to open up the whole issue of grants and equalization factors and collection of revenue from the property tax payers of this province to a full debate in the House and perhaps in committee, where the municipalities and the tax experts from across the province and the ordinary taxpayers who are concerned about property taxes and the amount for which they’re being hit in their pocket books can come before us and tell us and the government that this kind of playing around is not good enough and we need a good, long-term program, perhaps even a formula, as has been suggested by AMO.

This amendment is to ensure, as best as we can with the bill that’s before us, that that full and complete public and municipal debate takes place next year before we get into this mess again. I would urge the Liberal Party and the minister to recommend their position and to say to themselves, “Would it not make more sense for us to go to the municipalities and taxpayers and to say, ‘We are going to look at the property tax system for 1981 and to show our good faith we have accepted an amendment that says that this mess is for one year only and we will come back with a new and complete long-term system for 1981’”?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I just want quickly to draw three or four things to my friend’s attention. First of all, the 60 per cent has been in there since 1975. It’s not something new that has been added for this particular year because section 9, subsections 1 and 2 as they appear now have been in the act since 1975 and provide for a resource equalization grant.

If parts of that section have to be amended next year, so be it; I have no problem in doing that. I just have a problem in taking out the words “in each year” and putting in that there’ll only be a resource equalization grant for 1980 and after that it depends upon another bill in this Legislature. I think we need the stability of people knowing that that unconditional grant will remain; the way it’s calculated may vary.

The member has asked though about the special measures that are in this bill for this year. Indeed, I would think the member would at least give us credit for that because all the special measures that are in this bill for this year have 1980 in them, so they cannot be used for next year.

We’ve said this program for modifying the equalization factors for this year is not meant as a phase-in. It’s not meant as a standard upon which we will base future years’ programs. It’s a this-year-only program and 1980 appears in sections 2, 6, and those sections that apply to the modification and adjustments for this special program this year. I just say to my friend that tinkering with section 9 of the act is, I think, too much and something we can’t accept.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Isaac’s amendment to section 9(1) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 194 reported.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act.

Mr. Sterling: Since second reading of this bill, I have provided members opposite with an explanation as to the sections of the Architects Act which relate to this particular amendment, sections which make this necessary in order to achieve the purpose of providing architects with a tool for offering their services within a corporation to foreign or offshore clients.

I hope the explanation has been satisfactory and invite comments from the members opposite if they have any further questions.

Mrs. Campbell: I do want to express my appreciation for the explanation forwarded to me by the parliamentary assistant. I think the major problem in trying to read the purpose of this bill was really the explanatory note which confused me, certainly, in trying to cope with the meaning of it.

I found the explanation to be quite satisfactory and we will not oppose this bill.

Mr. Warner: Like my colleague from St. George, I also appreciate the explanatory memorandum which was sent over. Had this explanatory memorandum been appended to the bill when we received it the first time, we would not have had to come back here tonight. Unfortunately, the bill as it was originally tabled and the notes with it did not sufficiently explain the purpose of the bill. That led to prolonged discussion the last time we sat here.

I am certainly satisfied with the information provided during the past week. As far as we are concerned this bill can be passed without amendment.

Bill 176 reported.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 180, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that section 24 of the act, as re-enacted in section 1 of the bill, be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “24. This act is repealed on July 1, 1982.”

Mrs. Campbell: Again, I would like to express my appreciation to the parliamentary assistant. During our earlier debate on this bill I expressed my very deep concern that by leaving the repeal at the election of the Lieutenant Governor in Council we were really removing any kind of pressure in the provincial-federal discussions about the extension of the project, or indeed in getting on with whatever we might be doing or able to do in this province.

It seemed to me we needed a firm date and I expressed that wish. Therefore, the fact that this amendment is before us is totally acceptable to us. Again, my appreciation to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Warner: It is a great pleasure to see that the debate which we had on the previous occasion had some positive effect. Quite frankly, the government doesn’t often respond favourably to arguments put forward by the opposition members. In this case, it did.

The member for St. George and I and others argued that we really shouldn’t have a perpetual pilot project, which the unified family court in Hamilton appeared to be. It would assist everyone involved if we could have a termination date placed in the legislation. We made the arguments and there is no point in going back over them.

The parliamentary assistant has responded quite admirably and come back with an amendment which I can enthusiastically support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 180, as amended, reported.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 8 be amended by deleting the words “that is licensed or funded under an act of the Parliament of Canada or the province of Ontario in subsection 1(a) of section 386a of the said act.”

[9:30]

Mr. Isaacs: There are all kinds of group homes. There are all kinds of organizations that could seek to set up a group home within a municipality.

As the parliamentary assistant who is looking after this bill on behalf of the minister is aware, the city of Toronto had been wanting to put in its own private bill a definition for group homes that subsequently would have allowed the city, by bylaw, to describe what a group home is.

Not every group home is licensed under an act of the Parliament of Canada or the province of Ontario. Group homes can be set up by organizations -- very legitimate and usually charitable organizations -- to care for people who fall into the other categories described in this particular section of the bill, but without federal or provincial licence and without the need for federal or provincial licence.

Most group homes at the present time do receive funding from the federal or provincial governments. We appreciate that, though we feel quite often that the funding is woefully inadequate. But with the direction the government is going in terms of social services and in terms of support for this kind of facility, the day may come when a group home exists that is not funded by the federal or provincial government but from some other source, from donations from industry or from private individuals. Given that licensing may not always be necessary and given that the regressive policies of this government may mean funding is not available in the future, we feel it’s quite inappropriate to tie the matter of registration of a group home to federal and provincial licensing.

We believe the rest of the section to which this amendment relates deals very adequately with the definition of group homes and amendments we will be introducing subsequently allow a municipality to add to that definition if the municipal council feels an addition to the definition is appropriate for its local circumstances. We see no need at all to restrict registration to homes that are already registered, in a sense, with the federal or provincial government because of licensing or because of funding.

It concerns us too that duality of registration, in a sense, would be built into the legislation. We do not understand why the government sees it as necessary. We do not understand why municipalities cannot be allowed to deal with that of their own accord.

In case the parliamentary assistant comes back with comments from the city of Toronto, I want to tell him very strongly that group homes exist, and we hope they will exist very much more in the future, in many other municipalities. We do not understand why this particular restriction is placed in the provisions for registration. We hope that the government will see our point of view, that the provisions for registration should be made as broad as possible and that it will accept this particular amendment.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t want to repeat the argument that’s been made by my colleague. Our concern is that the definition of group homes in section 8 is too restrictive and that there are a number of facilities which would be classified as group homes and which will be excluded from coverage under this statute by virtue of the definition here that they are required to be licensed or funded under an act of the Parliament of Canada or the province of Ontario.

I would draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to the report, Group Homes, prepared by the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development in 1978. On page 19 there is a discussion of current provincial and municipal control standards, where the secretariat sets out quite clearly what our problem is with the existing definition as drafted by the government.

The report reads, “Licences are granted to group home operators under only five of the 14 group home programs.” There are 14 different group home programs in the province and licences as of the writing of this report were required for only five of the 14.

It is my understanding that some of the children’s reform legislation has increased the coverage of group homes which are subject to provincial licensing, but there are still a number of categories. I have to confess I am not entirely sure how many, but there are still a number of categories of group home which don’t require provincial or federal licensing, so they would automatically be excluded by virtue of the narrowness of the government definition in section 8. That is the point we are trying to deal with here in the amendment.

Reading again from the report, “Under 10 of the 14 provincially-approved group home programs operators are expected to comply with provincially-established standards of operation, which are set out in some cases in legislation, in others in manuals or written into the contract.”

There are five that are licensed and there are, I gather, another five where there is some degree of provincial control, but not licensing, and then there appear to be four other categories of group homes which are neither licensed nor subject to any provincial standards of any kind. They would include, according to the report, approved homes, satellite homes for the aged, children’s aid society homes and juvenile detention centres.

I am asking the honourable member to reply. I am expressing a concern that I think is a real one -- that your definition is too narrow and that by making it too narrow in terms of the licensing requirement you are excluding categories of group homes.

One of the reasons I liked the city of Toronto’s definition in Bill Pr5 is because it includes not just group homes that are funded under an act of the Parliament of Canada or under an act of this Legislature, but it also includes group homes which receive referrals from a government agency, from a hospital or from a court. I thought that was a neat way of making a comprehensive and inclusive definition.

I understand from the parliamentary assistant that he is prepared to permit the city of Toronto to continue to live with its definition of group home as set out in Bill Pr5 and that he will be presenting some amendments to Bill Pr5 which will tidy things up a bit but which will retain the essential definition contained in the city of Toronto’s model bylaw.

My concern is that is a good definition and it shouldn’t be limited to the city of Toronto. I think the amendment gets around the problem by defining group homes in terms of size and objective without restricting it unnecessarily by the requirement for licensing, simply because the licensing isn’t comprehensive at this point.

Again, I invite the parliamentary assistant to try to deal with those concerns because I am quite convinced they are real and legitimate.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the two members opposite for their concerns, because they certainly are legitimate concerns. Although I will try and explain to them why I will not support their amendment -- I hope I can convince this House that the amendment should not be supported -- I think the New Democratic Party member who has spoken and the government, including the ministry I represent and the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development which has been very much involved in the drawing of this legislation, all are trying to achieve the same objectives. I don’t think there is any dispute on what we are trying to achieve, it is just really a matter of how to best get there, probably more in the short run than in the long run.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the city of Toronto publicly because they really pioneered this type of legislation. If you look at section 8 of this bill you will see it somewhat parallels the original part of Pr5, the city of Toronto’s bill. I accept from the members of the New Democratic Party that more communities than the city of Toronto require group homes. If it was just the city of Toronto, this section would not be before us; we simply would have amended Pr5 because, as you are aware, at this point the provincial government and the city of Toronto are in agreement. The city of Toronto expressed that agreement by resolution of the council last evening, of which I think you have a copy.

We are doing this because it is our intention and policy, as it is with the New Democratic Party, to encourage other municipalities to pass zoning bylaws. The key is not a bylaw that can be passed under this section of the act; the key is to encourage municipalities to pass zoning bylaws which will permit group homes.

The important thing to remember is that this is not a bylaw for licensing. This is permissive legislation to register, not to licence. The member for Bellwoods used the word “licence” a number of times in his presentation. I don’t want to be critical but I don’t know if he was from time to time confusing licensing with registration. I don’t think so, but the word licence came up a number of times.

Mr. McClellan: You must have misunderstood what I was saying. I understand the bill perfectly well.

Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, I think you do now.

As I say, we all understand that this legislation, no matter how it is interpreted, does not restrict the municipality’s right to zone. This legislation is permissive and allows a municipality to pass a registration bylaw. If it so desires a municipality could zone for types of group homes and it doesn’t have to register them because they register a class or classes. Municipalities can prohibit unregistered group homes from operating, but they can also permit unregistered group homes to operate if they so desire.

So really not having the total definition the New Democratic Party has indicated they want does not necessarily restrict a municipality from passing a zoning bylaw. It does not restrict a municipality from allowing group homes if they so desire, group homes which would not be covered under this.

Mr. McClellan: But as you define them, that’s the problem. You can only register a group home according to your definition.

Mr. Rotenberg: You can only register the group home.

First of all, to the best of our knowledge almost all group homes would be covered under this legislation. In section 8 section 386a(1)(a) refers to group homes that are licensed or funded, not licensed and funded, by the province or the feds.

As the member for Bellwoods mentioned, I think almost all of the categories are funded by one or the other government. We have group homes which are funded by Community and Social Services, we have homes funded by Health, homes funded by our Solicitor General, homes funded by Correctional Services and group homes funded by the federal Solicitor General, so it really does take in almost all of the group homes.

The reason we have restricted the types of homes that can be registered -- and I would indicate the member for Bellwoods read from a report of the Social Development secretariat that wants this legislation and has asked for this legislation -- is because we want to encourage municipalities to establish zoning.

The experience so far has shown this is a very fragile process. It is a very difficult process. There is a lot of resistance out there in ratepayers groups, in homeowners groups, as we have seen in the city of Toronto and in the city of North York. There is resistance to the zoning bylaw, which is the key one -- this is not nearly as important as the zoning bylaw -- which would allow group homes to go in.

Although I recognize this is province wide we have to draw upon the experience of the city of Toronto, because that experience really has guided us because we have had some reaction from the folks out there. It was sold to the ratepayers groups in the residential areas of the city of Toronto on the basis there would be control and there would be registration and there would be inspection.

[9:45]

We are saying, in effect, in this legislation that, for the present, until we get group homes accepted across the province, we want to encourage those group homes. We want to be able to go to the ratepayers, and maybe assist the municipal councils in going to the ratepayers, and say, “Yes, we want you to accept group homes, but we have two sets of controls on the group homes we are asking you to accept.”

One set of controls is the municipal registration which says who they are, where they are, the distance apart, and who the responsible person is so that if there is an emergency at two o’clock in the morning, the registration indicates who to phone up and so on. That’s one part of it. The other part of this is that these homes will also be subject to provincial inspection. Every group home covered by this legislation, not just those which are licensed but even those which are unlicensed but funded by the province -- because we are now licensing children’s homes as you indicated, and others will be licensed as we get on to them -- is under provincial inspection.

We can go to these ratepayers groups and the municipal council can go to these ratepayers groups and say, “Look, all we want to do at the present time is bring in those kinds of group homes which will have the dual control of the province and the municipality.”

As I said, we have had considerable resistance to group homes. Believing not only in local autonomy, but believing that, even if we don’t, municipal councils do listen to their ratepayers, I know their approval is very important in order to be able to sell those group homes. We have been able to do it in the city of Toronto. There has been trouble in North York. As we know, the North York bylaw is now before the Ontario Municipal Board. North York wants to restrict certain types of group homes and not allow certain types of group homes, which it has a right to do, but the types of group homes it wants to exclude in its zoning bylaw are those types covered under the funding category and, therefore, covered under this legislation.

I think when we can go to other municipalities and ratepayers and say, “Yes, there is going to be this dual control of provincial inspections and municipal registration,” it will be easier to sell this to these various ratepayer groups.

There are not very many, but there are some group homes around which are not provincially or federally funded or licensed. These would tend to be the uninspected ones. These would tend to be those which would probably cause more trouble in a neighbourhood than the provincially inspected ones -- not necessarily, but they tend to be. We are a little apprehensive, just a little apprehensive. When I say “we,” I am not just talking about the ministry because the Social Development secretariat is very much involved in this; they are the ones who are pushing for the group homes and encouraging them. But if we do get an unlicensed, uninspected, unfunded group home which gets into a neighbourhood and which could give group homes a bad name, at this stage of the operation when they are new, it might discourage that municipality or other municipalities around it from bringing in zoning bylaws -- because of this bad experience.

In effect, what we are saying is, in the initial stages, until group homes are socially accepted as part of the normal landscape in a residential neighbourhood, let us encourage only those which are controlled both by the province and the municipality so that, to the best of our ability, there will not be too much fuss or problem in a neighbourhood.

Mr. McClellan: Could I interrupt you at this point?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will yield the floor to the member for a moment.

Mr. McClellan: This is where the honourable member loses me. He is saying that there are some group homes -- and I would be grateful if he could identify the kinds of group homes -- that aren’t licensed, but then he goes on to say, “Well, let’s just pretend they don’t exist.” That’s the implication of his argument. He is saying there is a category of group homes that isn’t under provincial legislation, inspection or standards, and so he wants to exempt them from registration. That simply means that neither can the municipality deal with them.

You are defeating your own argument. Your argument is that you want quality -- and so does everybody -- you want quality and standards in the group homes that are going to be established in neighbourhoods, but you are saying there is a category of group homes which is outside the standard setting process and isn’t subject to inspection and, therefore, you are going to also exclude those homes from the capacity of the municipality to register them and control them.

That doesn’t make any sense to me. If you are not going to do it, then you have to give the power to the municipality to look at it. You can’t just say, “We will leave this third or fourth class set of facilities outside the purview of anybody’s control.”

Could you explain that apparent inconsistency and, secondly tell me what specific group-home programs still remain outside the orbit of legislation, or funding, or inspection, or standard setting?

Mr. Rotenberg: First of all, let us understand that the purpose of all this, the zoning and the registration, is to get them into residential neighbourhoods. The types of group homes which don’t come under these classes can still go in most municipalities, in higher residential or commercial neighbourhoods; they are not being excluded from the municipality. I am again drawing from the city of Toronto example. What we are encouraging is to get these group homes into the residential neighbourhoods.

There are some crisis-care centres which probably do not qualify under these categories, but not very many do not. Of those that do not qualify for funding or provincial inspection we say, yes, they can be set up in a municipality but for the moment, until all group homes get a good name, let them go into those areas of zoning they are now zoned for and not necessarily into the residential neighbourhoods.

As I indicated earlier, I think the members opposite and the government have the same goal in mind, to encourage group homes into the neighbourhood. Those members of our staff, more in the Social Development secretariat than the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, which is carrying this bill because it is a municipal bill, have the feeling and the experience that in doing it this way, by taking one step at a time, we will do more to encourage group homes.

I am not going to convince the members opposite. We can agree to disagree, but hope, whatever way it comes out, there will be a number of municipalities which under this legislation and having a little more protection will be encouraged to zone for group homes in their more restrictive residential neighbourhoods more than they are doing right now.

Mr. McClellan: I am going to try once more because I don’t seem to be getting through to the parliamentary assistant.

You are permitting the city of Toronto, which has developed the model zoning bylaw, as far as I am concerned, for the rest of the province, to define group homes in the broadest possible sense, so that for purposes of the Toronto city bylaw you don’t have to be a licensed or funded group home, just a group home that is consistent with the number of people living in the facility for the purposes set out in the definition.

That permits the city of Toronto to register any group home within the boundaries of the city of Toronto, and that is the protection the city of Toronto has in moving to a model bylaw. That is what guarantees the orderly establishment of group homes throughout the city, so they won’t all be concentrated on one street in the Annex, or Parkdale, or Bellwoods. They can be established on an orderly, spaced basis throughout the whole city.

If you are to exempt categories of group homes from the registration process, you take away the capacity of the municipality -- in this case the city of Toronto -- to control their orderly establishment. You have recognized that because you have conceded to the city of Toronto -- I gather in formal discussions and through a formal understanding -- that the city of Toronto will be permitted to keep its own definition of group home in Bill Pr5. Good; I applaud you for that. It is very sensible.

What I am asking you to do is extend the same broad definition to all other parts of the province, so that when we are looking at North York, and you are trying to encourage North York to develop a model bylaw, there won’t be a class of group homes which is excluded from the enforcement provision of the model zoning bylaws. That is what this bill permits municipalities to do; it permits them to enforce their model zoning bylaws so there can be the orderly establishment of group homes. If you exempt a category of group homes from registration, then you are defeating the purpose of your enabling legislation.

I don’t know, and don’t make any pretence to know, the number of group homes we’re talking about in the excluded category. I suspect it’s more than insignificant and it may be substantial, I don’t know, but I’m just uncomfortable with the kind of exclusion that seems to be a likelihood in the minister’s legislation, because I feel it will serve to discourage the achievement of the objective of the legislation.

That’s the argument I’m trying to make in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I’ll try just one more time. Let’s look at municipality X out there. Someone attempts to bring in a bylaw and you get a lot of ratepayer organization opposition, as we did in Toronto and overcome it -- as we did in North York where we didn’t overcome it. Ratepayers are going to say, “Look, you’re going to pass a bylaw, you’re going to allow group homes; what controls have we got?” The municipal officials are going to say, “We’re only going to pass the bylaws for those which are also provincially inspected.” Ratepayers are going to be pretty happy with that.

When you say to them, “We’re going to allow group homes” -- and it’s the perception more than the reality, as you know, when you get into some ratepayer meetings -- some guy is going to come up and say, “Hey, but the registration bylaws allow you to register all those kinds of things, including the non-inspected ones. We’re against them all because you’re going to sneak in the non-inspected ones on us.” In those situations the municipality is going to have trouble getting their bylaw through; this has been our experience.

If we take one step at a time there will be a time, I say to the honourable members, five or 10 years down the road, when they’ve been accepted and we can abandon that control, but to sell it to new municipalities our experience has indicated this is the best way, because ratepayers will be more content to allow the zoning to go through and won’t object at OMB or whatever when they know the dual control is there.

That’s the reason we’re doing it this way, our experience indicates to us it is the best approach. With respect to the members opposite who agree or disagree, all the advice I can get from those in the field trying to sell group homes says this is the best way to get group homes in the province at this time.

Mr. Isaacs: I certainly don’t want to prolong this debate, but I’m getting more and more confused by the approach the parliamentary assistant is giving us on this.

I don’t know whether I can put it any differently from the way my colleague from Bellwoods has already put it, but I want to start from the other end of the registration procedure. The entire procedure that is set out in this section of this bill allows the registrar to inspect a group home, or to inspect premises that are being used as a group home that is not registered. It allows the council to pass bylaws to prohibit people from owning or operating group homes that are not registered according to a bylaw passed under this section.

Given the very restrictive definition that this section has for group homes, the registrar will have no authority to inspect a home that is being used as a group home but which is not funded or licensed by the federal or provincial governments. It seems to me that it would be quite appropriate for the municipality at least to have the power to inspect, even though the federal and provincial governments are not involved.

Second, not all municipalities have zoning bylaws in place to encourage the orderly development of group homes; indeed in many municipalities the matter is still in dispute. One example that is currently gaining public attention is a situation in Dunnville, where the council by its actions appears to be attempting to prohibit a group home from being established, yet the current zoning bylaw allows a group home in a residential category. That’s fine, I don’t have any problem with that; but that group home is not receiving capital funds from the government and is not licensed federally or provincially, although it may receive provincial operating funds once it opens, but the municipality can’t even put in place the registration procedure until the group home is opened because it is not licensed and is not receiving funds until it is opened. That is an incredibly backhanded way of doing things.

[10:00]

Surely it makes sense to allow the municipality to implement registration on any home that is being used as a group home or even planned to be used as a group home as soon as that matter comes to the attention of the municipality. I really have difficulty comprehending for those two reasons: inspection and prohibition, if the need arises, which let’s hope doesn’t, but might. Those are not available to the municipality under this restrictive definition of group home.

It is encouraging the operating of unregulated and possibly unsatisfactory group homes and ensuring that because neither the federal nor provincial government is involved in their operation, the municipal government shall not be involved either. I really cannot see the logic of that. I also have difficulty understanding why you have to wait until the thing is going and getting money before the municipality can register. In all other registration procedures, application is made before one opens the door rather than afterwards.

I still have difficulty understanding the rationale behind this restrictive definition the parliamentary assistant is trying to assure us is satisfactory. I don’t buy the argument of leaving such a restrictive definition in place, when it seems to me we could improve the role of municipalities in the registration of group homes by broadening the definition as we are suggesting by this amendment.

Mr. Epp: I find this discussion very confusing, to say the least. I would like to get clarification from these two personalities as to what they are trying to discuss and the clarification they are trying to give this House. To my mind, it is more confusing.

For the benefit of the House, let me read what we are discussing. We are discussing the definition, “‘Group home’ means a residence that is licensed or funded under an act of the Parliament of Canada or the province of Ontario for the accommodation of three to 10 persons, exclusive of staff, living under supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their wellbeing.”

I ask the parliamentary assistant, very respectfully, what would he call a residence that is not necessarily licensed but is established “for the accommodation of three to 10 persons, exclusive of staff, living under the supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their wellbeing”? What would he call that?

I am going to give the parliamentary assistant the opportunity to answer that right away because I want to know what that is. If a group home is one that is licensed by the provincial or federal government, what is something that has the same characteristics but is not licensed? Obviously, it is not a group home, according to this definition.

Secondly, how are they controlled? If, in fact, such an establishment exists, how is it controlled?

Mr. Rotenberg: I think what the honourable member described, if it is neither licensed nor funded by the federal or provincial government, would still be a group home in general parlance, but would not be a group home for purposes of this act. As for control, it would still be controlled under the municipal zoning bylaw.

With respect, this does not change the function of municipalities to zone. A municipality may zone a home in or zone a home out, whether or not it comes under the registration procedures.

As I was trying to explain to the members opposite, the purpose of being more restrictive is we are not trying to encourage municipalities to pass zoning bylaws to allow group homes. We know from experience in those municipalities where we have tried to encourage them that there is ratepayer resistance. What we are trying to do, in the initial stage at least, is encourage those group homes which the province is supporting, controlling, funding, inspecting, whatever, because those are the easier ones to get in. By doing it that way we are confident we can get municipalities to pass zoning bylaws, not bylaws under this section but zoning bylaws, which if they are a little more restrictive will be easier to get through the ratepayer groups, easier for residents to accept if they know they are group homes which are in effect inspected and controlled by the province of Ontario.

We do this in order to encourage municipalities to pass those kinds of bylaws so we can work consistently and together with the municipality, to put those kinds of group homes in first. If the others come along the municipality still has the option of zoning for or excluding. The main control is still under zoning bylaws; this is just a little bit of extra we put in.

The members have to understand this isn’t the main control. We’re putting this in because the experience in Toronto and other municipalities has indicated that ratepayers who have this little extra control of registration are a little more prone to accept in a zoning bylaw the type of group home we want to encourage.

This is not the main control; the main control is still to the zoning bylaw of the municipality.

Mr. Epp: We get the impression from the comments of the parliamentary assistant, and I’m trying to be very sympathetic to him, that by virtue of zoning the group home is established, when in fact the kind of zone the group home is in is immaterial to the particular status or establishment of a group home.

I think he is trying to confuse the whole issue by continually trying to integrate in his discussion the different zoning bylaws. It’s really immaterial whether the group home is in an industrial zone, a residential zone, a commercial zone, in any other kind of zone. What we’re dealing with here is a group home. I think the parliamentary assistant should limit his material and his comments to that rather than trying to confuse the issue with the different kinds of zones.

Mr. Isaacs: I just want to respond on this matter of zoning, and because it’s easier to talk about a specific example I’m going to use the Dunnville situation, not because I want to pick on that municipality but because I happen to have the facts in front of me.

In Dunnville up to five unrelated persons can live in a single family residence. The Dunnville zoning bylaw in a residential category permits that. It has nothing to do with group homes, it is just a general provision that up to five unrelated adults can live in the same home.

Along comes the Haldimand Association for the Mentally Retarded and says, “Fine; we can put five persons in a single-family home and use it as a group home.”

I have no objection to that, it seems to me to be quite a reasonable thing to do. It’s permitted by the zoning bylaw, it falls within the definition of group home that is given here, as long as we take out the licensing or funding provisions, because five is between three and 10 and they’re living in a single housekeeping unit and because of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition they require a group living arrangement for their wellbeing -- so it’s a group home.

It seems to me it would help the situation if the municipality could register that group home. I cannot understand why we’re excluding it by the wording the parliamentary assistant is trying to convince us is satisfactory.

I really don’t want to prolong this, but it seems to me vital for allowing the kind of development the parliamentary assistant is speaking of that we allow registration where zoning bylaws permit, regardless of these other encumbrances that just make it more complex and ensure there will be group homes operating in municipalities that cannot be registered because they don’t fit under this very restrictive definition.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Isaacs’ amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Isaacs: I have a second amendment on the same section. I believe you, Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant and the critic for the Liberal Party have copies.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 8 be amended by the addition of the following:

“(5) No council may pass bylaws under this section unless there is in effect in that municipality a bylaw under section 35 of the Planning Act which encourages and governs the orderly development of group homes within the municipality.”

Mr. Isaacs: As a result of the last discussion, I think I at least have an understanding of what the government is trying to do in this section, although I don’t particularly agree with the approach they are taking. I know the parliamentary assistant has acknowledged previously that we are all working in the same direction to encourage group homes within residential areas in municipalities where that is desirable.

We’re suggesting, by this motion, that the whole matter of registration, given the discussion that we have just had, now be tied to bylaws that encourage the orderly development of group homes.

In some ways you might say we predicted the comments that were made. I think we understand what the parliamentary assistant has been trying to tell us is his approach to the problem. We are therefore asking that this subsection be added to section 8 in order that it is made very clear to municipalities that the encouragement is there and if they want to make use of registration then, by all means, they should do so, but should pass bylaws that regulate, encourage and govern the orderly development of group homes within their municipality.

That seems to me to be a logical consequence of the kind of discussion we’ve just had and what I sense to be the approach the government is trying to take on this particular issue. I hope the parliamentary assistant is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to disappoint my friend from Wentworth, but I don’t accept the amendment for two reasons.

Firstly, a zoning bylaw is a legal document. With respect, the word “encourage” is not a proper word to appear in a zoning bylaw. The word “encourage” is a proper word to appear in an official plan. Although I don’t think it belongs in this particular section, I would be very pleased if the various municipalities put in their official plans that they would like to encourage the development of group homes within their municipality.

Secondly, although I think the intentions of the member for Wentworth are proper and good and we are on the same wavelength, if this amendment is passed I think it might do just the opposite to what he wishes us to do. Maybe some municipalities will pass a zoning bylaw to allow group homes. If they do that’s fine. It would allow group homes. But because of ratepayer pressure and so on they may be a little reluctant to put the word “encourage” into the bylaw. They may wish to take a more passive attitude.

The member for Wentworth is saying, in effect, that unless a municipality not only passes a zoning bylaw to allow group homes but includes in the statement it is going to encourage group homes, it is not going to be able to have the registration procedure.

As I say, that is one reason for my opposition. The main reason I can’t accept the amendment though, is simply that the word “encourage” does not belong in a zoning bylaw. In other words, the zoning bylaw is a legal document and I’d hate to see the court cases that might come up to decide whether or not something was encouraged and whether or not the zoning bylaw was legal.

It’s much cleaner, much neater and much better for group homes if we don’t pass this amendment, even though we might all want to encourage them.

[10:15]

Mr. McClellan: It strikes me as one of the more specious arguments that have come from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Conway: And there have been many.

Mr. McClellan: There have been many. The amendment is not intended as a model zoning bylaw. I don’t know how anybody could take it to be intended as such. The amendment does not read, in any way, shape or form, as an instruction as to how the model bylaw or the municipal bylaw should be worded.

Everyone is aware that the province has drafted and sent a copy of a model bylaw to all municipalities throughout the province. There is no possible way you could read the amendment as instructing any municipality to use the word “encourage” in the drafting of the model bylaw. That is absolute nonsense.

What the amendment does is tie registration into the passage of a model bylaw. It makes the power to register group homes conditional upon passage of a model bylaw. It is as simple as that. If the parliamentary assistant is opposed to that principle, why doesn’t he just say so?

It really demeans the debate to be reading that kind of nonsense into a patently self-evident and crystal-clear amendment. We are just trying to do what the government should have done itself, that is set out in the legislation the purpose of the legislation.

The purpose is to encourage municipalities to pass a model bylaw by giving them the means to enforce the model bylaw through registration. What we are trying to avoid is to have a municipality use registration in a negative, punitive or discriminatory way against group homes. What we are trying to do with the amendment is say to a municipality, “We will allow you to register group homes and to control the orderly establishment of group homes on the condition you pass a bylaw that encourages their orderly development in the first place.” What is so difficult about that?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to rise and support what the member for Bellwoods has just said. It strikes me that everything the parliamentary assistant has been saying, although he premises it with the fact we are all going in the same direction and we all want group homes, is to talk about ways to protect the reluctance of a community from taking on group homes.

The whole idea of the provincial government perhaps taking five or 10 years to get all the municipalities in this province to accept the fact there is a basic human right involved for people who are disadvantaged to be able to live in their own communities, in my view, is outrageous. All this amendment does is exactly what the member for Bellwoods says. One brings in any bylaws one brings in in a positive framework with one’s own model bylaw which encourages and governs the orderly development of group homes. It seems to me the flim-flammery we are hearing in the parliamentary assistant’s argumentation is that he really doesn’t support the idea of group homes moving in as quickly as possible into the municipalities around this province at all. He is doing everything he can to minimize and slow down this process.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would simply say the amendment, although well-intentioned, will put another stumbling block in the way of a council that wants to bring in group homes. They may not interpret the bylaw quite the way the NDP wants it.

Mr. Isaacs: The last comment just astounds me. We attempted in the previous amendment that was defeated to remove a stumbling block and we are attempting here to provide an incentive to municipalities to put in place a zoning bylaw that deals with group homes explicitly and which encourages their orderly development. The parliamentary assistant comes back to us and says it puts a stumbling block in the way.

We have just been talking about how it is necessary to encourage municipalities and to encourage the residents of neighbourhoods that may be affected to recognize that the controls are in place. We are suggesting that by encouraging the municipality to put in place a proper zoning bylaw to deal with group homes, with the extra measure of protection that can be given to the residents the municipality can be encouraged to move in that direction, and the people of the area can be assured that through zoning bylaws, which are far more effective than registration and probably even more effective in terms of ensuring that premises are kept orderly than provincial or federal registration, the residents could be assured, if this section is approved, that the zoning is correct and that the zoning deals with the situation of a group home, as well as the other things that are contained in this particular bill.

I really have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, with the parliamentary assistant’s last comment that it is a stumbling block. Quite the reverse, it is a move in a positive direction, encouraging municipalities to put in place the model bylaw, or something like it, that the ministry has already circulated to them. I fail to understand how anybody could interpret it as a stumbling block.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate. I am wondering whether by deleting two words in this amendment, certainly based on the comments of the parliamentary assistant, it might very well be acceptable to him. That would be the deletion of “encourage and,” so that it would then read: “No council may pass bylaws under this section unless there is in effect in that municipality a bylaw under section 35 of the Planning Act which governs the orderly development of group homes within that municipality.”

As you recall, the parliamentary assistant took particular exception to the word “encourages.” Deleting those two words would obviously make it very acceptable to him.

Mr. McClellan: I was about to propose exactly the same thing. Why don’t we just take out “encourages and” and you can indicate your acceptance?

Mr. Rotenberg: If you really want something in there that the legislative council suggested, it would end up, “No council may pass bylaws under this section unless there is in effect in that municipality a bylaw under section 35 of the Planning Act that permits the erection and use of group homes in municipalities.”

That covers it, but it is redundant. If you really want it in there I don’t object; but you don’t need it, because obviously unless it is in the zoning bylaw you are not going to have a group home and therefore you have no registration. If you want something like that, I have no objection to it. As you say the objection was to “encourages.” I don’t mind wording which is almost the same as the member for Waterloo has put in, but it is unnecessary because it is redundant.

You cannot, as I say, have a group home unless you have a zoning bylaw; and you don’t have to have a model bylaw if you have a simple amendment to the zoning which permits the group home; then you go ahead. If you want that, I don’t object to it.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t feel it is redundant. I feel it is necessary that there be some specific amendment that states the purpose. I am quite pleased with the wording the parliamentary assistant has proposed. I think my colleague could be persuaded. If you would like to move that as an amendment we will withdraw our amendment; but we will wait until the parliamentary assistant moves his amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: I will write that out in a moment. If you stand that down and deal with the next section I will have the revised wording in the proper form in a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Just for clarification, Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 8 be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(5) No council may pass bylaws under this section unless there is in effect in that municipality a bylaw passed under section 35 of the Planning Act that permits the erection and use of group homes in the municipality.”

Before I can accept that amendment I will have to ask the member for Wentworth if he wants to withdraw the previous amendment.

Mr. Isaacs: With the understanding that the parliamentary assistant is moving that alternative, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I have read the amendment placed by Mr. Rotenberg. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Rotenberg: Could I ask that the word “erection” be changed to “establishment”?

Mr. Chairman: The word “erection” has been changed to “establishment.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 8 be amended by the addition of the following:

“(6) No bylaw under this section shall seek to prohibit the operation of group homes within the municipality.”

Mr. Isaacs: I will be very brief. I think the intent of the amendment is very, very clear. The parliamentary assistant indicated on second reading it was his understanding that this was already provided for in this section of the bill. Our reading of it does not make that clear to us and we are therefore moving that it be made very explicit in this section on registration that it cannot be used to prohibit the operation of group homes whether or not zoning bylaws are in effect.

We would be concerned that a municipality could appear to be moving in the right direction by implementation of the model zoning bylaw and then could pass bylaws under this section to negate the effect of that zoning bylaw, given that it is easier to change bylaws dealing with registration of group homes than it is to change zoning bylaws, because changes to zoning bylaws can be forced before the OMB, where bylaws relating to registration may not be sent to the OMB. We are suggesting that this amendment clarifies that very simply and makes sure that the intent of this section is clear to everybody.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I can’t support the amendment. In effect it negates section 8(386a)(2)(b) which now enables municipalities to pass bylaws to prohibit any person from owning or operating a group home that is not registered.

If we say in one section you can prohibit a group home which is not registered, which is the municipal control they want, and then turn around in another section and say you can’t prohibit, we are negating the bylaw.

The purpose of the New Democratic amendment is simply that they cannot withhold registration capriciously. That is covered under section 3 which says where application is made to register, they must register.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t support it because it negates the whole section.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, the point that the parliamentary assistant has made may have some validity and maybe is something that we have overlooked. I appreciate his recognizing that the intent of this amendment is a good one and I am sure that by the time this bill comes up for final consideration we can ensure that it is dealt with appropriately and that an amendment is before the committee that does not have this particular conflict.

Mr. Chairman: Is there further discussion on section 8 and this amendment?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments and two bills without amendment.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.