Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

REFERENCE IN REPORT

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On page 89, the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario says: “Mr. Frank Warnock, the president of M. Loeb Limited, testified on behalf of that company as to Mr. McGuigan’s allegations. He testified that the IGA store manager asked Mr. McGuigan’s son for a discount on the apples as the store manager wished to buy as cheaply as possible. The son agreed to the discount in order to obtain the business of that store. Furthermore, the witness testified that the store manager’s request for such a discount was against Loeb company policy. Although discounting is contrary to company policy, it takes place ‘day after day in the field’ as store managers attempt to obtain the lowest net price possible, he explained.”

Mr. Speaker, my son did not speak to the store management at any time and his only contact with either the store or Loeb was when he phoned to say that the discount they were taking off our invoices was in contravention of the Apple Marketing Commission regulations. I resent the wording that my evidence was an allegation. If the judge considered it as such, why did he not call my son and the store manager as witnesses?

I would point out that if discounting took place only in the field, then one would question why discounts were unilaterally taken at the head office without the supplier’s consent, either verbally or written. I cannot allow the word “allegation” to go unchallenged, and I believe my privilege as a member has been abused.

Mr. Speaker: I will have a look at the reference the honourable member made to the report and, if it appears that your privileges have been infringed upon in any way, I will report that to the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL REPORT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, later today I will table the sixth annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council.

The council has been very active this past year in working to improve the status of women in this province and has strengthened its ties with women’s organizations across Ontario.

Seated in the gallery today is the council’s chairperson, Lynne Gordon, and Linda Silver Dranoff. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynne Gordon as well as all council members and staff for their dedication and diligence in bringing the concerns of women to the attention of government.

PEACH PROCESSING INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have copies of this statement for opposition members.

I would like to respond to some of the comments raised yesterday regarding Ontario’s fruit processing industry and, in particular, the peach processing industry.

I want to clarify the difference between freestone peaches, which we all love to eat fresh from the farm, and the clingstone varieties, which lend themselves to modern canning methods. It is important that honourable members distinguish the difference. Clingstone means that the fruit clings to the pit but it is firm; it can be handled mechanically and will retain its colour, appearance and good flavour in the can.

The industry realized some time ago that the canned product from our freestone variety peaches could not compete against large volumes of low-cost, and in some instances, subsidized imports of canned clingstones from California, South Africa and Australia. The lack of sufficient tariff protection contributed to a decline in our production and processing of traditional peach varieties.

Ontario traditionally produced freestone variety peaches, but it was recognized that the Ontario industry would have to swing over to production of clingstones if the processing industry were to compete. It has been a difficult task, but we are starting to see some gratifying results.

2:10 p.m.

The peach research committee was formed a number of years ago, and our experimental station at Vineland tested many varieties of clingstone peaches and was able to recommend some varieties for planting in Ontario which would provide sufficient yields and a superior-quality product.

The peach research committee is working constantly on all production aspects of peaches, including culture, trickle irrigation and new varieties to ensure that new plantings will be developed on the most efficient basis for Ontario conditions.

The Ontario government is also giving leadership through the tender fruit development committee. This committee is made up of producers, processors, researchers and the government. It has charted out a replanting program for clingstones which has been under way for eight years. The industry has decided to proceed without government financial assistance in the replanting program at this time.

I am gratified to note that the amount of clingstones coming to market has increased to 8,900 tons in 1980, some 1,000 tons more than last year. We expect this will increase each year. The major processor in Ontario has been working with individual growers and it is expected that additional clingstones will be planted each year until the industry reaches its first target of producing 10,000 tons for processing by the year 1990.

To facilitate the long-term development of the peach processing industry, the Ontario government, through the Ontario Development Corporation, was instrumental in getting a cold storage built at St. Davids in the Niagara Peninsula. The Ontario Fruit-for-Processing Co-operative undertook a 15-year business incentive program loan with the Ontario Development Corporation for $500,000, interest-free for five years. The cold storage is necessary to condition clingstone peaches for processing.

As I stated earlier, one of the main obstacles to the development of the industry was the lack of tariff protection on imported products. In spite of all our efforts in Ontario, we still needed relief from the low-price imports. The entire industry, including producers, processors and this government, pressed the federal government --

Mr. Bradley: It will be somebody else’s fault. It’s always somebody else’s fault.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Just listen to the next word or two. For some years the federal government was pressed to provide adequate tariff protection.

Mr. Bradley: Including Mr. Wise.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, including Mr. Wise. I am glad you brought his name up, because I was going to.

The new federal government elected in May 1979 -- the whole House knows who they were -- came through with some relief. As a result, on February 1, 1980, the tariff on imported processed peaches was changed from a fixed tariff of 2.5 cents per pound to 12.5 per cent of the processed value. Now, with this greater protection, the planting program for clingstone peaches will speed up.

This would mean the old tariff on a 56-pound case of canned peaches would be $1.40. If the import value of a case was, say, $20, then the new tariff rate would be $2.50, or almost twice as much.

We currently have 75,000 bearing clingstone trees producing about 4,000 tons annually. We have 30,000 nonbearing trees already in the ground. In 1981, 33,000 clings will be planted, and in each year until 1985 plantings will take place to provide 270,000 clingstones planted out by 1985. This will provide the targets set by the industry of 10,000 tons by 1990 as previously stated.

Incidentally, the new tariff program is of major value to other sectors. The outstanding example is the tomato solids processing program, which will result in major increases in tomato farming and processing.

We know that market share of Ontario-grown peaches has dropped substantially from what it once was, and that the processing sector has gone through a rationalization. I believe the above-stated facts indicate the reason for this and show the situation is reversing as a result of our help and interest.

Contrary to the belief of some people, the Ontario fruit industry is here to stay, and it will stay. Total tonnage of peaches for processing in 1980 was 4,916 tons of which 3,900 tons were clingstones, up 1,000 tons from the previous year. I am pleased to say that total production of peaches for processed and fresh markets is increasing, and in 1980 it totalled some 34,000 tons, up 20 per cent over 1979. The processing tonnage for all tender fruit, excluding grapes, in 1980 was 26,622 tons versus 23,243 in 1979.

I would make one last comment on this matter. The producers and processors of tender fruit, through the Ontario Tender Fruit Institute, are involved in co-operation with the Foodland Ontario shared-cost program in the promotion of processed fruit products, which include cherries, peaches, plums and pears. A very successful frozen cherry promotion has just concluded. A promotion exhibit is planned at the Royal Winter Fair, and a canned fruit promotion is scheduled for the month of March.

This government is vitally concerned with the future of the fruit industry in this province. We have and will continue to support this industry in every way we can.

INDIAN TREATY RIGHTS AND HUNTING

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, during recent debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and others raised questions concerning the hunting, fishing and trapping rights of native people in Ontario.

I recognize there is confusion on the part of many of us, including the Indian people, on this subject. I would like again to briefly state the approach we have taken on this matter. First of all, I should note that my remarks here refer only to status Indian people in Ontario. However, only the status Indian people who are parties to treaties in northern Ontario have treaty rights relating to hunting, fishing and trapping.

The status Indian people in southern Ontario are parties to treaties and purchases that do not include such treaty rights. These people, though, are claiming they have an aboriginal right to hunt, fish and trap, and we have agreed to review that claim with them.

Members will understand that there are numerous ifs and buts that should be included in a statement such as this. However, it is our approach that the status Indian people can legally hunt moose, deer and other game animals within their own treaty area, at any time of the year, without a licence, and without a limit on the number of animals they take.

There are, however, some qualifiers. They must not sell them, waste them, or take them in a way that imperils public safety. We have taken the position that the treaties in northern Ontario take precedence over the sections of the Game and Fish Act that relate to the taking of game, except those sections dealing with selling game, wasting game or public safety.

2:20 p.m.

Since a case dealing with the Game and Fish Act and the treaty right to trap in the Treaty No. 9 area is now before the divisional court on appeal, I can only tell the House that at the moment it is our view that the registered trapline system in Ontario applies to all status Indian people in Ontario, as it does to all non-Indian people in Ontario. However, we will review our position on this after the courts have dealt further with that question.

Probably the most difficult aspect of this issue to deal with is the fishing. This is largely because in a legal sense the Ontario fishery regulations, which are actually federal regulations under the Fisheries Act of Canada, apply to status Indian people in Ontario as well as to all other people. This, of course, does not recognize that some status Indian people have treaty fishing rights.

In view of this, I have agreed to recognize, through changes to the Ontario fishery regulations, an Indian food fishery for each band that has fishing rights under a treaty. I have further agreed to negotiate these changes with the Indian people and the federal government.

We realize that the negotiation of such changes will likely take considerable time. Because of this, the Indian people asked that we propose interim measures to reduce the number of charges against Indian people under the Ontario fishery regulations during these negotiations. In response, I offered to issue a permit to each individual Indian band that had treaty fishing rights in order to use their domestic food fishery within an area near their reserve as agreed locally with our field staff. This offer was rejected by the representatives of the Indian people.

I have also agreed, as requested by the Indian people at our meeting on June 18 of this year, to look at the feasibility of establishing a procedure that would provide for an administrative review of all charges proposed against status Indian people under the Ontario fishery regulations. This suggested review would look at whether the Indian person or persons involved were fishing or hunting migratory birds for food for their own domestic use. I include hunting here because the legal situation in relation to the Migratory Birds Convention Act is similar to the Ontario fishery regulations since they are both federal laws. However, I am unable to give the House at this time any further indication of the possible form such a review might take.

Much of the information that I include in this statement today has been provided in writing to the representatives of the Indian people of Ontario on previous occasions. On June 18 of this year, at a meeting with them in Toronto, I tabled a proposal for dealing with the Indian food fishery in Ontario. Previously, on May 10, 1979, I sent a letter to the presidents and grand chiefs of each of the four major Indian organizations in Ontario and to each of the regional directors in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Attached to this letter was a comprehensive and detailed statement of our position on the enforcement of hunting and fishing laws as they relate to the treaty rights of status Indian people in Ontario. Copies of these documents are attached to this statement.

Honourable members will recognize that I have stated on several occasions, and will now again reconfirm, our willingness to negotiate with the Indian people and the federal government to react agreement on changes to the various game and fish laws that are seen to be in conflict with Indian treaty rights. In this context, it is important that I respond to some suggestions by members of the opposition that they would introduce an amendment to the Game and Fish Act that would exempt status Indian people from section 35 of that act, a section which requires all persons to have a licence to hunt game in Ontario.

First, as I have just stated, it is our position that we will negotiate changes to hunting and fishing laws as they relate to treaty rights rather than proceed unilaterally. However, notwithstanding that, it is my understanding that it is well established, and it is certainly our interpretation, that section 88 of the Indian Act makes the suggested amendments to section 35 of the Game and Fish Act redundant.

In addition, it is my further understanding that, even if Ontario did move to include such an amendment in the Game and Fish Act, it would be unable to do so since that would be legislating specifically with respect to “Indians,” an area that by section 91(24) of the British North America Act is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

I look forward to further negotiations with the Indian people and the federal government on the issues I have outlined here today. It is my hope that the House can proceed to debate and accept Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act, as presented.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to quote to the minister two statements in the Toronto Star attributed to Dr. Hugh Smythe and ask the minister for some comment.

“It is pretty bad when you are in the middle of pinning a hip and the image intensifier quits on you,” said Dr. Hugh Smythe, “but it has reached that point.” He goes on to say: “We have been arguing that depreciation matter since 1974. The government will probably make the decision by 1986 and that is too late for us. The equipment is breaking down now.” Would the minister care to comment?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the question of new equipment purchases, both replacements and the introduction of new equipment, is a very important one. Over the years we have attempted to keep up with reasonable levels of inflation and depreciation, but I recognize in some cases, particularly with new machinery where there are new generations of machines coming on faster than one can imagine, the increases are faster than what has been allowed for.

I would point out that for a number of years now the ministry relationship with hospitals has been on the basis of global budgets so that the hospitals may move the money around within their budgets as they see fit and as their priorities and needs change, whereas many years ago it was strictly on a line-by-line basis and the priorities for individual hospitals were decided by the ministry, not by the hospitals themselves.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister not admit that the method by which depreciation is granted a certain percentage each year is simply inadequate to deal with replacement costs of the sorts of things that are going wrong day by day, the kinds of things one has to expect to replace on an ongoing basis, even apart from the fact that the new equipment is more sophisticated and therefore even more expensive?

Would the minister not admit that this problem was entirely foreseeable, and would he explain why it is that public hospitals now have to go out to seek funds from the people of Ontario on a private charitable basis, not just for building funds, which we can understand, but simply to keep up the day-to-day replacement of equipment which naturally runs down occasionally and has to be replaced? Why should we be dependent on private charity for basic equipment in the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, some time ago, given a whole variety of pressures on what has become the traditional budgeting process, we asked the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals to work with us in evaluating all the budgeting processes in trying to come up with new principles for the future.

That work has been completed by the committee and the report is under review by our staff, as members probably know. We will continue to work with the hospitals on this, including the question of depreciation allowance.

The other thing I have to say is that the boards of the hospitals and the administrators are facing the very same problem on a day-to-day basis as I face. That is, the demands being placed on them for new equipment, new programs, new staff, new whatever, are always greater than are the resources available, even though spending on health in the last four years I have been in the portfolio has gone up by more than 50 per cent. The pressures are always greater than the resources available.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister indicated in his second response that there was an internal review within his ministry -- sorry, he did not? I want to know what he is going to tell the assembly and Dr. Hugh Smythe as to whether we will all have to wait until 1986 before some determination is made by the government, and therefore made public, to deal with this very serious, acute problem which many people in the hospital community are quite justifiably complaining about.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I indicated was that we have been working with the hospital association and the council of administrators of teaching hospitals in evaluating the process, and even the principles, of hospital budgeting. It is fair to say that Dr. Smythe, or the administration of the board of that hospital or any hospital would not want to go back to the days of line-by-line budgeting where the ministry in effect determined and dictated their priorities. Rather, they would want to keep the global budgeting process whereby they can move the money between departments and between priorities as they see fit.

Clearly we want to ensure that the hospitals are well-staffed and well-equipped. What I am saying to the member, and I do not think he would want anybody to get the impression otherwise as a point of view, is that there are always demands on the board and on the ministry for more programs and more equipment. There will always be a waiting list, as it were, for new ideas, new equipment and new programs greater than the resources available at a point in time. Consequently, one has to evaluate the priorities. We rely on the boards and the administration to do that for their own hospitals.

Mr. S. Smith: I am not sure whether the minister is suggesting that the hospitals have somehow been wasting money in their operating expenses which they should otherwise have put into their --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I neither said that nor inferred that, and the honourable member is taking a cheap shot.

Mr. S. Smith: I am terribly sorry. I will say this on that point, if I might: I distinctly heard the minister say they could redirect money within a global budget; they had that kind of freedom. Therefore, if they did not have the money now for the replacement of this day-to-day outdating and obsolescence of their equipment, conceivably the only reason he would have brought up the whole matter of budgeting was that he was implying there might have been money for that elsewhere in the budget. If that was not what he was implying, then I have to wonder why he brought it up.

The question I would like to ask is; does the minister not admit that what Mr. Boyd McAulay said is correct? He said: “A lot of equipment should have been replaced before this, but we have been living so close to the vest with government restrictions for so long, we couldn’t do it. Now all of a sudden, the chickens have come home to roost.”

Would the minister, at the very least, get his government to cancel some of its outlandish programs, such as its vast advertising program, and give the money to these hospitals so they do not have to beg from the public on a charitable basis for the day-to-day equipment needs that every hospital has?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have before me a clipping from the Kingston Whig-Standard, dated September 28, 1978, which is headed, “Ontario Must Slash Spending, Warns Smith.” That was just after the member demanded that my budget be slashed by $50 million. The government of Ontario, which sits on this side of the Speaker, has no greater priority than health care. In fact, the spending on health care in the less than four years I have been minister has gone up by more than 50 per cent.

I would like to have the advantage of the member opposite of trying to be all things to all people, of trying to say to all people that there will never be the need to evaluate the priorities and to do things in order. The fact is, we in this government do spend more than $14 million a day, every day of the week, every day of the year, on health care.

MINISTRY ADVERTISING

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding the ministry’s current television advertising campaign. A certain commercial in particular shows a man in a canoe -- the minister may be aware of this one -- and the name “Howard Spencer” comes on superimposed. The gentleman describes himself as an engineer and comments on his opinion about the mechanisms used by the Ministry of the Environment. Can the minister inform the House whether the gentleman in the commercial is, in fact, Howard Spencer? If he is not Howard Spencer, is there an engineer called Howard Spencer? If there is an engineer called Howard Spencer, did he give permission to the actor portraying him to convey the message exactly as it is conveyed in the commercial?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no, yes and yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister elaborate? Will the minister assure us that he will table in this House the written authority given by this Howard Spencer, as well as the credentials of this Howard Spencer? Will he furthermore guarantee to this House that in all the commercials in which a name is superimposed or in which a professional status is alleged by the person that those professional statuses are either the profession of the person alleging it or the profession of the person whose name is being taking on for the purpose of portrayal?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not trying to be flip, but again the answer is yes and yes.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact it is accepted that the campaign is a waste of money, should this government not get together with the federal government and dismiss both of the campaigns and devote that money to such services as day care or the hospital equipment that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) was talking about before?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not accept that it is a waste of money and, if I went to the federal government, I do not think I would get much sympathy; they spend about 10 times what we do on advertising.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to move from the minister’s world of illusion to his ineffectiveness in protecting the environment of Ontario. Can the Minister of the Environment explain why the government is continuing to work with Walker Brothers Quarries Limited in Thorold as a co-proponent in developing facilities for solidifying liquid industrial waste when Walker Brothers is permitting liquid industrial waste to be dumped at its dump near Thorold in direct contravention and direct violation of the licence it has received from the Minister of the Environment? This is the licence here.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are working with a lot of people on a lot of sites, and that is the way the honourable member would have it. We understand right now that there are some particular problems at that site and they are being addressed.

Mr. Cassidy: Since there is evidence that liquid wastes are being trucked into that particular site near Thorold, can the minister explain why the ministry is prepared to put up $100,000 of public money to enable Walker Brothers to make its case before the Environmental Assessment Board when this company clearly is not even able to police the present dump site that it has in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: First of all, I want to say again -- I have said it many times and I hope eventually it is clearly understood -- that the ministry is a co-proponent on the process of solidification, not only in the St Catharines-Thorold area but also in Harwich. We are co-proponents on the process of solidification, and I think the member and I both know that he and many other critics have suggested that he too agrees with the concept of solidification. That is the point that has to be made.

As regards whether the site is an appropriate site, we are not a co-proponent. We certainly selected those two sites and then said very clearly: “For that site to receive approval, it must go through the full environmental assessment and the board will decide whether that site meets the specifications.”

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not admit that, although the solidification process itself might be acceptable, the way in which a company conducts that process is the operative point? In Hamilton, for instance, the company was not sufficiently rigorous; there was a hole in the thing, and the solidification process turned into the magic box with which he is well familiar.

If these people who are to be trusted presumably to conduct the process cannot or do not wish to police their own sites right now, why would he want to get himself involved in this way? Why would the ministry not make it clear that it wants nothing to do with these particular companies that cannot properly operate the sites they have at present and that it is not prepared to trust them to operate a much more elaborate and important site?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I guess it means the member would ask that no site ever be given that approval. As a matter of fact, had the member listened on many occasions, he would know we have said we will be on those sites where large volumes of liquid waste will be accepted for solidification processing. We will be there on a full-time basis, 24 hours a day, so that we can assure ourselves there is no illegal dumping on those sites. That has been glossed over a bit. But I think it is extremely important that the ministry will be there on a continuous basis to make sure no materials are accepted that cannot be treated.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, now that Walker Brothers Quarries has violated its certificate and broken the laws of this province -- and this is not an isolated incident in its case -- will the minister at least put a total freeze on any further moves towards the use of the adjacent Walker site for the proposed Soliroc process for waste liquid treatment and disposal? Will he maintain the freeze until, through a thorough site examination and investigation, he sees how badly he has been hoodwinked with the present system?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not quite in the same position as the member opposite --

Mr. MacDonald: He knows the facts.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. He has made the accusation and then said the guilt was proven. That is not the case. It may very well be that the accusations have been made and that they are correct. But there is a vast difference between making the accusation and having the case proven. He has not made that case.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that, because of his past regulations and his position of not being responsible in those past dump sites, he is creating a backlash whereby the average citizen now is put in the terrible position of not knowing whom to trust? In the light of this past performance, does he not agree that this new solidification process is in very dire circumstances because he has not seen fit in very recent times to control the dumping in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That again is just not the fact. I am sorry to have to say it so bluntly. Sometimes one has to take a look at what else is going on. This seven-point program has said very clearly we want the dumping of untreated wastes in Ontario stopped, period -- no ands, buts or ifs. We want the dumping of untreated wastes stopped. We are in a very active program of finding suitable sites; that does not happen overnight. The member rightly has demanded hearings, and we have agreed; that too takes time.

There is no jurisdiction in Canada that even comes close to our active program of finding methods of treating our liquid industrial waste. I defy any member of this House to put forward one piece of evidence which denies that Ontario leads and leads by a country mile.

STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL REPORT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, with respect to the report of the Ontario Status of Women Council, which she will be tabling in the Legislature today. The Ontario Status of Women Council states specifically that it is anxiously awaiting a government-sponsored bill which would address the growing wage gap between men and women. They once again endorse the need for legislation for equal pay for work of equal value.

In view of this, will the government agree to stop blocking Bill 3, which is awaiting final passage in the Legislature? Will it bring that legislation into the House so that we can enact it for third reading before this House adjourns in December?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation, along with many of the others submitted in the annual report, is receiving consideration by this government.

Mr. Cassidy: Since this is a test of the government’s policies -- if it has any policies -- for equality, including economic equality for women, and since the status of women council has also recommended that Ontario should have a comprehensive child care policy which recognizes that child care is a vital family support service for anyone who needs it, is the government prepared to accept the recommendations of the status of women council and bring in universally accessible day care for the province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The answer is no.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: This report was introduced with great fanfare and with glowing remarks by the minister about the chairman and other individuals, but the main things being requested by the advisory council consist of about 12 items, virtually every one of which has been turned down by the government -- equal pay for work of equal value, turned down; legislated affirmative action, turned down; contract compliance, turned down; affirmative action in the private sector, turned down; child care policy, turned down; human rights legislation for class action, turned down; pensions, turned down.

Since practically everything they have asked for has been turned down, why is the minister wasting the time of the people on the Ontario Status of Women Council? Why does she not thank them for their services, let them get on with other things and stop the farce of pretending that she is interested in their advice?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is typical of the Leader of the Opposition -- a very cynical approach. We receive reports from advisory councils in various ministries. I have indicated that many of the recommendations are still under consideration. It is not easy to make decisions based on recommendations that are submitted by a particular group of people. There are many pros and cons that have to be addressed, and we are doing that throughout the government.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: From the minister’s answer, can we expect this government to be taking the same attitude towards those areas outlined in the report as it did to Bill 157, which we introduced at the opening of this session, specifically the areas of work incentive, skills training, legislated affirmative action, contract compliance and sexual harassment as well as to the private member’s bill tabled here last spring on the employment of domestic workers and their inclusion in the Labour Relations Act?

Can we expect this government to give the same treatment to all those areas as it did to my Bill 3 on equal pay for work of equal value? Is the government’s attitude still that all these ideas are interesting but they are ideas whose time has not yet come?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am delighted to hear the comments of the new women’s adviser for the New Democratic Party. I too have had, and continue to have, a stake in the advancement of women in this province, and I have every bit as much interest as he has in seeing that women are treated equally and fairly in all those areas he has indicated.

He has not taken into consideration that many of the programs are already in place. He has glossed over the numbers of people in the work incentive area. Through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, more than 1,000 women are being assisted in gaining re-employment and while they are in the process of coming back into the labour force. I did not notice him mentioning that, yet it is a very successful program. It was one of the first in the whole of Canada to be implemented, and many other governments are following our lead. The member does not seem to want to pay any attention to the very positive things that are happening for women in this province.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the deplorable record of this government in its own service, why does the minister, instead of complimenting these people who have worked so hard, simply not tell them, as she no doubt will tell this House in a few months, that the report is irrelevant?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I find it difficult even to respond to the honourable member, who is a very cynical person as well and who does not even appreciate that people are advancing whether she is willing to recognize it or not. Things are happening; there are affirmative action programs and women are being given opportunities -- perhaps not as quickly as some of us would like, but it is happening.

2:50 p.m.

USE OF SCHOOL PHONES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I support the leader of the New Democratic Party when he says, “Move aside; we will take over,” as Bob White said of the United Auto Workers.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Education. Will the minister undertake to look at the policy of certain high schools -- an Ottawa high school in particular -- which denies students the use of a pay phone, especially after late evening school dances, and which resulted in the unfortunate situation in Ottawa over the weekend whereby a young girl was denied the use of a pay phone to call her parents for a ride home, had to walk home and unfortunately was the victim of a hit-and-run accident?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the Carleton Board of Education about this very unfortunate incident, which occurred on Friday evening and resulted in the death of a student of Ecole Secondaire Garneau. The policy of that board is apparently that, after school hours, the use of the pay phone may be permitted to a student provided the student is accompanied by a teacher.

The Carleton board has asked for a specific report on all of the occurrences of that evening. It is apparently their intention to have all of that information available by the first of next week, and I have asked that we be informed completely as soon as that information is available regarding the circumstances of that evening.

The policy for the use of phones within the school is of course the prerogative of the board in most circumstances, but I shall most certainly look to see whether those are so restrictive as to cause potential incidents in which this kind of totally unfortunate and tragic occurrence might happen.

Mr. Roy: In view of the fact that apparently this was not the first time the use of the phone had been denied to students in similar circumstances, will the minister also review with the board of education whether there is not some method whereby, in cooperation with Bell Canada or somebody, students could have the use of a pay phone in an area that is not necessarily locked?

Does the minister not feel, especially considering that this type of incident happened before in the Orleans area, where the school is somewhat isolated, that it just seems so unreal that the students’ only effective method of communication was denied in such circumstances?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware that it is alleged the student was denied the use of the telephone. I am also aware that there is a statement on behalf of the principal of the school that all that is required to have the phone used is a request to the supervising teacher to accompany the student to the telephone.

I would hope that in most circumstances and in most schools there would not be the possibility of having to move to a locked portion of the school to use a pay telephone. Surely there is a place within the school which would be more convenient to the area that is being used by students for after-school activities and could be utilized much more easily and much more readily by the students under such circumstances. I will be looking into that.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask whether the minister is aware that, even at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, prisoners seem to have access to telephones to get hold of their lawyers, and why a school board would have a policy that would restrict the use of telephones by students.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It would be pure conjecture on my part to assume the rationale for the policy. I would suggest that it probably has been developed on the basis of the fact that students do not often have to use the phone during the normal school circumstances, and during normal school circumstances can use the ordinary phone in the school office.

I have no idea why the pay phone is located on the second floor. I would surmise that perhaps the location was the reason the policy had been established that a student had to be accompanied by a supervising teacher to go into that portion of the school which under normal circumstances is locked after school. But I really do not know and, as I said, it is pure conjecture on my part to suggest these things.

I will try to find out why they developed such a policy, but I have to tell the honourable member I am not aware that correctional institutions grant privileges that are not granted to secondary school students.

MASSEY-FERGUSON

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning the refinancing assistance to Massey-Ferguson. Can the minister tell us if any of the commitments he and his federal counterpart have given to Massey-Ferguson have extracted from Massey in return a firm commitment to build a diesel plant? They admit they want to build one in this country in the near future and perhaps an axle and transmission plant further down the road.

If one is built in this country as a result of this financing -- if they survive after they get the refinancing -- will they be coming back to the trough for more assistance at that time to help them build that diesel plant? Can the minister assure us that is one of the commitments he has been able to extract, and indeed will insist on from Massey, before anything is guaranteed to that company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, a key part of the undertakings we are seeking from the company would require that all future investments of that variety occur in Ontario -- or in Canada, I should say more accurately. With regard to that specific one, if there turns out to be an opportunity to get that diesel plant relocated here, that would be and is one of our goals.

The member can tell from my remarks there are certain clear impediments to the movement of that diesel plant. I would be misleading the House if I indicated we were able to deliver that as part of the package. But the member can be assured we do have an eye on that particular diesel operation.

Mr. Laughren: I was referring to a new one, not the existing Perkins operation in England.

Since the guarantees the two ministers are talking about will ensure that the public sector at best can break even, and could end up losing money and having the private investors protected not the public sector, why will the Minister of Industry and Tourism not insist on an equity position in the company, and preferably an equity position that will give the public sector control of Massey?

Does the minister not see the rather striking parallel between the agricultural implement industry and the aerospace industry, which a few years ago was bailed out by the public sector and maintained as an important, high-technology industry in this country? Does the minister not see the striking parallel between those two examples? When is he going to stop socializing the cost of public investment in the private sector rather than guaranteeing there are some social benefits to be accrued by the public sector as well?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What we are trying to accomplish is not a government takeover of Massey-Ferguson, which would cost the taxpayers of this province perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. That, it seems to me, is not what the taxpayers of this province want.

What the taxpayers of this province surely want and expect from government is that we get maximum leverage for a minimum amount of taxpayers’ investment. What our statement yesterday indicated was that there is some hope that can be accomplished.

I would remind the member that by going the route we are currently talking about it may well be we will accomplish total private sector funding for Massey-Ferguson and get it back on track without it costing the taxpayers of this province one cent. We have also minimized our downside risk by virtue of the kind of proposal that is on the table.

3 p.m.

If the member is advocating that we buy controlling interest in the company and run it as a government operation in the public sector, he has to be prepared to advocate investing in that industry and that firm -- as opposed to other industries -- hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. He would still then not be terribly certain the company would survive in the long run. I do not think that is the kind of situation the taxpayers are asking for.

If we are successful in the current endeavour, I repeat, we may end up saving those jobs, getting outstanding commitments to preserve those jobs, adding to our industrial strength in that sector and not costing the taxpayers of this province a nickel. That, it seems to me, is good government.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the basic credit test for Massey is only nine days away, can the minister assure the House, and the people in the Brantford area particularly that he has received assurances the creditors will not be pressing for a liquidation of the assets when that credit test comes forward at the end of the month?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All I can say at this time is that yesterday’s statement was issued in part to assist the creditors in making their decisions. We would hope that creditors would respond positively to the positive indication given by government of our willingness to participate in certain circumstances. We would hope that would somewhat alleviate some restlessness out there amongst the creditors.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the whole package of refinancing Massey is dependent upon government funding or support, one way or the other, why does the minister refuse to take control of the company? Why does he not insist the government has that kind of share control which will give it the power to ensure it can put the engine plant and the axle and transmission plants in Ontario? The fact is, it has no control whatsoever over that corporation if the stockholders decide to put the plant somewhere else. Its maximum leverage is nothing but an illusion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would remind the member that was not the position of his party when the Chrysler alternative was before us. His party was not advocating that the only solution for that company would be to buy up enough shares to control it. The member’s party was advocating quite sensibly that we use whatever leverage we had to maximize the benefits we could for Canada. We succeeded in doing that in this province.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, this government did not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member says we did not? He had better check and see what his party leader said in that circumstance.

The member seems to be suggesting that the best solution for Massey-Ferguson is for the taxpayers to buy up the company and run it, while all of us on this side of the House, the bureaucracy, act, in the words of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) the other night, as a surrogate board of directors and simply order that certain assets be transferred to this country and that different production be undertaken. If he is suggesting that, it is a sure recipe for the loss of those jobs.

The member would like to live in the dream world of pretending that all government has to do is sit down and say, “Would you mind putting that plant here, putting those jobs there and making this product.” Surely even the taxpayers in his riding would expect us to see whether we can lever good, sensible, private sector management, with their own money on the line and their own reputation at stake, bringing their expertise to the running of that company and not, frankly, the expertise of some bureaucrat civil servants or politicians. That is what the taxpayers demand.

I understand the member’s political obligations, but we have a wider responsibility to all the taxpayers. They will get that kind of leadership here as they got it in the Chrysler case with the support of his party.

GANG KILLING

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, during question period on October 10, a number of members opposite expressed concern about the tragic death of John Vernon Turner at a weight-lifting competition in the city of Hamilton. At the time, I stressed that the Hamilton-Wentworth Police Force was giving this investigation the highest priority. A warrant has been issued for one suspect and police are vigorously pursuing every possible lead that might enable additional charges to be laid. I am personally satisfied that everything possible has been done to apprehend those responsible for this vicious assault.

One question which I was unable to deal with on October 10 was the question posed by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) regarding security arrangements at Hamilton Place, which, as the members will recall, was the scene of the attack on Mr. Turner and his friend. I am now able to assure the member and others who expressed concern, that the management at Hamilton Place had no reason to suspect the presence of police would be required that evening.

A similar competition held last year passed without incident and there was no reason for officials to contact the Hamilton-Wentworth force concerning extra security measures. I was also assured by Chief Gordon Torrance that his men had no information that members of the Parkdale gang would be in attendance that night. Quite frankly, the sudden and unprovoked attack came as a complete surprise.

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Chief Torrance and his men are making every effort -- again I repeat -- to bring those responsible for Mr. Turner’s death to justice. In view of the interest expressed by the member for Niagara Falls and others, I will keep the House advised of further developments in this case.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Does it not come as a surprise to the minister, and is it not rather disappointing, that when such a circumstance took place in a public place we have only one man charged when obviously many more people were involved and the police have not named other names and brought forward the kind of witnesses who would be able to attest to the numbers involved and the people involved?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat what I have said in the past; I share the horror of all citizens in relation to this vicious assault in a very public place -- a place that is frequented by a cross-section of the community, a very popular meeting place. Obviously, I, together with the Hamilton-Wentworth Police Force, share the disappointment that to date only one warrant for the arrest of one accused person has been issued, because I agree with the honourable member that there are obviously others involved.

All I can state, once again, is that every reasonable avenue has been pursued and the law enforcement authorities are reasonably confident that other warrants for other accused persons will be issued in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Stong: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure us that he has given instructions to the police force to monitor this gang of thugs and gangs like this whenever they assemble in public, so that we will not have repetitions of this type of incident?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In reference to the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario and in view of the minister’s statement in the Legislature on October 10 alluding to the three recommendations in the report, does the minister not realize that along with those three innocuous recommendations there is a fourth recommendation contained in the body of the report which states the Legislature should create a watchdog mechanism to ensure that those non-negotiable rebates, which the commission was evidently unable to unsurface in its investigations, do not reappear?

If there was no problem in the first place in connection with rebates, discounts and allowances, as alleged by the royal commission, then what kind of reappearance of the problem is the commission alluding to when it recommends that “a forum outside government be established to mediate problems”? With the contradictions that are found in this report and with the recommendations which fly in the face of the testimony that was given, what action is the minister now going to take to protect the small grocers and processors considering that the royal commission found there were no problems, and yet they do not want these problems to recur?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of all the comments in the report. I am well aware of the suggestion that we should possibly consider setting up such a committee. I personally want to wait until I hear from the consumers, from the processors, from the producers and from all the people associated with the food handling industry before I tie the people of this province down with additional regulations and legislation they may not want.

Mr. Riddell: When the minister was asked to comment on the recommendation that grocers should be allowed to sell wine, he stated, and I quote, “I don’t believe we have many small grocers left; so I am not too worried about that.” Does he not understand that the reason for the royal commission investigation was to ascertain whether the discounting practices had led to the demise of the small or independent grocer and processor? Does he not realize there are those of us on this side of the House who requested that commission, who do not believe in the old Tory philosophy that there is no place in Ontario for small business?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member want an answer to the question or does he already know it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member is well aware of the position of this party when we appointed the royal commission. We appointed a judge, a man with all the abilities; he has listened to the evidence and has presented a report. He has made recommendations in that report. I have made my position clear. I am going to wait until I have input from the world out there, not necessarily the individual making the suggestions here in the House.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister make a statement that he was not aware of any small grocers left? If he had read the report, it stated that there are 7,000-odd small retailers and only 600 big retailers.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member is making up words to put in his mouth.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the minister consider his recommendation of an outside agency to solve a real problem, in view of the government’s record of accepting outside advice when it pleases them and rejecting outside advice whenever it pleases them, such as in the Cantrakon and Beaver Valley cases?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am not sure I understand the question. Would the member repeat it?

Mr. McGuigan: The minister indicated he was considering the advice of an outside agency.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No. When did I indicate that?

Mr. McGuigan: He said he was studying it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, I did not. I said I was waiting for reports from the public out there, not from an agency. I have no agency.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member like to rephrase the question?

Mr. McGuigan: No. I have my answer.

NAMASCO LAYOFFS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I wonder whether he is aware of the announcement by Namasco, a steel company in Windsor, that as of October 31 another 25 employees will be laid off. There are already 35 people on layoff from this company, and this company will stop production of its products and instead act as a warehouse.

Is the minister also aware that the two other plants of this company, one in Burlington and one in Winnipeg, are non-union plants and will be taking over the production of the unionized plant in Windsor? Is this not a good example of a company that should have to justify its closure, or its 90 per cent closure, of a plant in Ontario before it is allowed to close the plant?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I do not have all the details of that reduction in employment at that plant, but, just on the basis of what he has said, would the member be equally prepared to have public justification of situations where unions strike and close down a plant? Would he go along with the same thing on the other side of the ladder?

Mr. Cooke: Since this minister is so concerned about foreign corporations and whether they are going to come to Ontario, I would like to ask him what advice he would give to a constituent of mine, a Mr. Bob Welch. He worked for Auto Specialties for 24 years until 1971, when that company ran out of Windsor and he lost his job, and now he works for Namasco. By the way, he gets $19.63 pension at the age of 75 from Auto Specialties for 24 years of work. Now he works at Namasco, which is closing its doors, and he is aged 63 and has no job to go to. How does the minister of lack of concern over there, the minister who only cares about foreign investment, advise my constituent?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would advise the member’s constituent that at the same time that has happened, there are other people in the auto industry -- I think of some of the people in Kitchener -- who are benefiting from the fact that some of the rationalization that has gone on in the auto industry has favoured Canada. Some of the rationalization has operated in our favour. In that case, there was a rationalization of facilities out of the United States into Canada.

I would also advise the member’s constituent that if he is not satisfied with the arrangements negotiated by the United Automobile Workers on his behalf, he might want to take that up with the UAW.

I would also say that he should keep in mind the remarks made by the industrial development commissioner for Windsor when he pointed out -- and I have the letter here if I can get it in my hands before I sit down -- that the kinds of things the member is advocating are specifically the kinds of things that will drive new employment out of Windsor.

If the member wished to take the matter up with Jim Moore who I am sure he thinks is an excellent development commissioner for Windsor and who firmly believes that what the member is advocating will drive auto investment out of Windsor, I would be very interested to hear the dialogue between him and Jim Moore because, quite frankly, I will go with Jim Moore over him any time.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question that was raised by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) yesterday regarding the proposal for a 300-acre resort residential development of 46 single-family detached dwellings and a hotel of some 40 or 50 bedrooms which would also be associated with the recreational facilities. The proposal is located on parts of lots 12, 13 and 14, concession 5, in the township.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission refused to issue a development permit for the proposal. The applicant, as is his right, appealed the matter and a hearing officer recommended refusal. On August 20, 1980, I concurred with the hearing officer’s recommendation and refused the issuance of the development permit.

On August 5, 1980, the Beaver Valley group put in an official plan amendment known as number 33. That is two and a half months ago, for the information of the member for Halton-Burlington. The amendment has been circulated to eight ministries of the government for their comments. There have been 11 requests for referral of this particular amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board, and I have the names of the individuals who have requested this referral. For the information of the House, this morning I signed the letter of referral to the Ontario Municipal Board for its deliberation.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that this project has been turned down by the minister previously this year, will he give a commitment to this House that the government will oppose this at the hearings which will be coming up at the Ontario Municipal Board?

Might I also ask the minister whether it is true that the firm of Goodman and Goodman, which has Eddie Goodman as the head of it, is involved with the developers or as the lawyers for the developers; that Cambray Investments and Maxtone Holdings Limited are two companies which have as their president Samuel Kolber, who is also the president of Cadillac Fairview; and that Cadillac Fairview gave $2,000 to the central campaign of the Conservative Party in the last election?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me make it very clear, whether it is true or not, that is of no consequences to the Ministry of Housing. I was asked by 11 different individuals and groups if I would refer this item to the Ontario Municipal Board for its unbiased decision relating to amendment number 33. This issue will go to the municipal board under the same circumstances as any other referral, with the information being supplied to the municipal board in the complete file that relates to this amendment and the response that my ministry has received from the other ministries of the government of Ontario. That is exactly what we will do in this case, and that is what we would do in any case, regardless of who the applicants and the lawyers are or whether they happen to be good Tories. If they are, they deserve the same attention as anybody else in this province.

WASTE FRUIT SALVAGE PROCESS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of a new process of the Bright Canning Company at Niagara Fails, namely, that of drying and pulverizing waste fruit products, such as grape, tomato and apple waste, for use in cattle and dog food, a process that salvages waste but has caused great inconvenience to adjacent home owners because of the obnoxious smells and tremendous noise that come from this process?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not currently aware of that problem, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to have my staff look at it, give me a report and respond to the member’s question.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister also aware that his office in Welland created the situation because the ministry issued a permit for the operation without a site inspection? Therefore, I ask him, will the ministry reimburse the company to move this facility out of the area so that people can enjoy a clean, noise-free environment?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will include that in my response.

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can the minister indicate to the House at this time what the government is doing regarding the problems that are being experienced by White Motor Corporation in Brantford, where about 1,700 jobs are in jeopardy? If so, can he assure the House that the company will resume operations on November 3 or thereabouts?

Mr. Martel: That is a big book the minister is carrying.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I like to keep the members as informed as I can.

Mr. Martel: It indicates how many problems you have.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is mostly a list of the problems we have solved. That is why it is such a big book.

Mr. Speaker, we have been monitoring the situation from the start, as we have indicated several times. With the recovery that is being anticipated in farm commodity prices, White informs us its situation is hopeful at the present time. I have some further confidential information which has been relayed to us but which I cannot totally disclose. Suffice it to say that White at this time is fairly optimistic, especially when it looks at its market share, commodity prices and some plans it has for the early part of 1981. At this stage, I can say that the White situation looks very hopeful.

Mr. Makarchuk: If there is a delay in the reopening, I presume that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), as well as the Minister of Industry and Tourism, will receive notice. Can the minister at this time say whether he has received notice of a further extension of the shutdown or whether the company will be resuming work in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe we are still anticipating a recall of workers, at least in part, during 1980.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Did the minister see the report in the Globe and Mail a couple of weeks ago of the receiver’s meeting involving White in which the implication was that they were attempting to keep the Brantford plant closed since their truck plant in British Columbia was making a profit? Can the minister assure the House that the Brantford plant is seen to be an asset, not only to the community but also to the company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I can, on the basis of our information.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In keeping with the standing orders of the House, I filed a question for the Notice Paper on October 9. As you are aware, at least an interim answer is required within 14 days, but rule 81(d) specifies that “the minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming, or that he declines to answer.” I did get an interim answer, but it does not comply with any of those three particular conditions outlined in the rules.

The interim answer simply said the information would be available on December 1, yet my question was a very simple and straightforward one. It went to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), and it asked him very simply, “When will the Ministry of Health provide the ministry-approved $2 million for the expansion of the emergency ward of Scarborough General Hospital?” It was a very straightforward question.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been an abuse of the rules, and I seek your guidance in examining that situation and reporting back later.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I realize there are two ways of interpreting this rule. Perhaps there should be a comma after “more time” so it would read: “... he requires more time, because the answer will be costly or time-consuming ...”

I think the assumption has been that it would be answered within 14 days but some information may take more time and that discretion is in the hands of the minister. If the minister indicated in an interim answer that he would answer it within a certain length of time, we certainly think that complies with the standing order.

Mr. Speaker: It does require a considerable amount of time. I was involved in supplying some information for an answer to an inquiry of the ministry and it did require more time. If it is detailed and time-consuming, obviously you will have to be patient.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I normally possess patience. This issue goes back many months and it was a very simple, straightforward question. I can only deal, as I believe the Speaker can, with the rule as it is printed.

Mr. Speaker: I thought you said it was just over the 14 days.

Mr. Warner: The answer within 14 days is not satisfactory, in keeping with standing order 81(d). That is what I am asking you to investigate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything to indicate that the interim answer is in violation of the standing order. I will take a look at it but, on the basis of what I have heard, that would be my impression.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to make the suggestion that, as we near the finish of the question period, we consider adopting what might be termed the football rule? As you know, if the play is in progress in football, one permits the play to be completed and, if there is a penalty, even the play following the penalty has to be completed once the clock has run out.

I wonder whether the purpose of question period might be better served -- and I ask you with respect to consider this, sir -- if once a question has been started and time runs out, that question, its response and the normal course of supplementaries might be permitted to run the complete course, rather than being truncated by interruption of either a question or an answer or prevention of a supplementary. It is a matter of how one interprets the time limits. As I say, we might consider the football rule, if possible. I ask you to give that some thought, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Generally speaking, that is precisely what I do. I give considerable latitude. Quite often we run two or three minutes over simply because a question is put with a minute to go and requires a somewhat detailed answer. I allow the members to do that.

3:30 p.m.

The standing order says the question period will run for one hour, but I don’t interrupt. If somebody is on his feet and is recognized, either with a question or an answer, I don’t intervene, but I don’t allow another supplementary after the time has expired.

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. MacBeth, from the select committee on constitutional reform, presented a report and moved that it be placed on the Order Paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 30(b).

Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if I might say a word in regard to that at this time, I would like to take just a moment to mention the appreciation of the committee for the work of our clerk, A. Smirle Forsyth, assistant to the cleric, Franco Carozza, our senior research officer, Dr. Linda Grayson -- who, by the way, was provided to us by the legislative library -- and her two assistants, Mary Beth Currie and Kathleen Hall. They did excellent work for us and we operated without the benefit of legal counsel.

I would draw your attention however, Mr. Speaker, to the last paragraph of the introduction, which simply says: “There are opinions and recommendations in the report with which individual members of the committee disagree. We have compromised to arrive at recommendations of substance. Since the recommendations represent a consensus on each subject, no single member of the committee should be held responsible for any one of the views expressed in the report.”

I want to add that I look forward to a very early discussion of this before the House, because in that last paragraph lies a great deal of meat which I am sure all of us would like to get our teeth into.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 63(d), Mr. McNeil and Mr. Leluk exchange positions in the order of precedence, and that Mr. Dukszta and Mr. Charlton also exchange positions in the order of precedence.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to the motion and express my opposition to it. I know that changes in the order of precedence in the private members’ hour have occurred in the past. I know there were at least two occasions that I can reach when private members were elevated to the cabinet and their place was taken by members in their party immediately below in the list.

There were other occasions, and I am not sure about it but I believe one involved the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), when he informed us that he would be absent on the business of the Legislature, I believe in his capacity as chairman of the public accounts committee, and the change was offered and accepted under those circumstances.

I do, however, feel that we must beware of allowing the private members’ hour simply to become something other than that reserved for the use of private members and become something merely for the use of an individual party.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, from time to time various matters come to public prominence when it would be seen to be useful to bring forward a specific matter for debate, on which occasion the order could be changed so that a matter would come before the House under those circumstances. While that has obvious advantages for all three political parties, it does not have an advantage for the individual and private members of the House. The individual and private members may have a matter they want discussed and debated and accepted or rejected by the House, and lose their opportunity because, I suppose, of the judgement made by others that other matters are more important.

We have come a long way in recognizing and emphasizing the role of the private members in this House. I and others can recall an occasion when no private members’ legislation was ever debated or considered. We now do so every Thursday afternoon, and even on Thursday evening we have an opportunity to debate the reports from the standing and select committees -- once again, something that was not always the general course of events here.

I feel it is obvious that under certain circumstances changes must be made. The justification may very well be of the type I have already referred to, in those instances where changes have been made in the past. But simply to request the change and a substitution for reasons that do not fall into that category, I believe is not sufficient justification for the change that is requested by the resolution. For that reason, I for one intend to oppose it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that, notwithstanding what my colleague has just said, there were five occasions last year alone in which this matter was brought forward, where we had five motions to switch business. The switches were: in April, Watson for Handleman; in March, MacBeth for Johnson; on May 29, Epp for Ruston for J. Reed, which was a three-way move; on June 22, Rotenberg for Rollins; and on October 11, Jones for Gregory. The switches have occurred with some regularity.

From this point of view, I agree with my friend that we have come a long way. But I do not think we can shackle the private members.

Anybody who says that some of these private members’ bills are not policy of any particular party is just pipe-dreaming. One also has to say, when one looks at the voting pattern in the House of private members’ hour, that it is anything but. The fact is that by and large it is a party vote. I would prefer to see it the other way, because on a number of occasions I have departed from voting with my colleagues. But that does not occur very regularly, because we have not really made it into a totally private members’ hour.

We veto bills -- predominantly by that party over there. I recall one bill in particular that was vetoed by the government and two weeks later the Attorney General introduced the same legislation. We talk about private members’ hour. One finds some difficulty at time believing it really is a private members’ hour.

As I say, there were five occasions last year when changes were made with no objections. I find it strange that at this time there is an objection, with something about a principle being violated because it relates to something a particular party wants to bring forward. I think it is time we stopped kidding ourselves. This is a political arena, after all. While we say it is a private members’ hour, I say we have only gone half way. When there is no veto, then it will become a proper private members’ hour. Until such time, it really is not a private members’ hour.

I am not going to hide from the fact that we wanted an accommodation based on what we see to be some pretty important matters to be discussed confronting the massive layoffs of the people in this province. Therefore, I do not hide behind this sacred principle, which was not a sacred principle on five other occasions. I am going to support the motion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of my two colleagues. My friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has mentioned five occasions when we have made switches already in this particular procedure.

I can understand the point of view of the House leader for the Liberal Party. I can appreciate what he is getting at. But I think the position we would take is that we are trying to be a little too rigid if we feel that in private members’ hour, if private members wish to effect some change, we as a House should object to that.

3:40 p.m.

I see nothing wrong with having this debate here, and I see nothing wrong with voting on it. This is what this House is for. But I must put forward the position on behalf of my party. In our case, it is strictly a case of a private member who now, many months after the draw has occurred, finds he cannot be there on the date and at the time when the draw provided that he should take part in that debate.

We do many things around this House, particularly we three House leaders, from time to time with the agreement of the parties and with various other agreements. We change orders and sometimes put other important business in on a Thursday so that even a private member who plans months ahead and works out on the calendar when his bill will come up or his resolution may be debated may find that, through some action of ours, the day upon which he is going to have his chance to debate in this House is no longer the same.

We, to some degree, can take some responsibility for the shifting of dates from time to time. Therefore, I feel it would be wrong for us to deny the members a chance to shift their dates. I really do not think it violates the principle of a private members’ hour. I certainly do not object to the fact we had this debate. I think it is good and healthy to debate some of these things that go on in this House from time to time. I feel the motion should be passed.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

Mr. Ramsay moved first reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste Marie.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill 174, An Act respecting the Sale and Repair of Motor Vehicles in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide protection for purchasers of used cars and consumers of car repair services. The bill requires a motor vehicle dealer to affix a notice containing useful information for potential purchasers to every used motor vehicle offered for sale. The bill sets out a statutory warranty covering the sale of used motor vehicles.

The bill also contains provisions requiring a motor vehicle repair station operator to provide the consumer with an accurate estimate of the cost of repairs. This estimate, if accepted by the consumer, becomes binding on the repair station operator.

The bill also contains a statutory guarantee for repairs. The bill is based upon provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

I look forward to the enthusiastic support of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) for this bill.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 270, 272, 276, 289 to 295, inclusive, and the interim answer to question 301 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 3613.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 17:

That a new standing order, 47(a), be incorporated into the section entitled “Supply,” to read: Once the order in which estimates are to be considered is determined under the provisions of standing order 47, that order may be changed either by substantive motion upon notice or by unanimous consent.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 18:

That the following changes in the sequence and location of the consideration of estimates be made: (1) That the estimates of Treasury be transferred from committee of supply to the standing committee on general government, to be considered following the estimates of the Office of the Provincial Auditor; (2) that the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman be considered following the estimates of Treasury; (3) that in the standing committee on resources development, the estimates of Natural Resources be considered following the estimates of Industry and Tourism: (4) that the estimates of Housing be transferred to the- standing committee on general government, for consideration following the Ombudsman estimates: (5) that the estimates of Labour be transferred to the standing committee on social development, for consideration following the Community and Social Services estimates.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 172, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to alter one provision in the tax arrears procedure in the Municipal Affairs Act. At present, at the end of the period of redemption any person with interest in the property may pay the municipality the arrears in taxes and ask for a conveyance, which is to be approved by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

It is proposed that the minister be given discretion to either approve a conveyance or order the registration of a redemption certificate, which would give the person paying the taxes a further lien on the land without jeopardizing the position of the other interested parties.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have looked at this legislation and, cooperative and constructive in opposition as we always are, we have some concerns about this legislation. Possibly the parliamentary assistant can alleviate our concerns.

As I understand the present legislation, if a property happens to have tax arrears -- at least according to the information that has been given us here -- and after the one-year period the land has not been redeemed, sold, conveyed or declared by bylaw to be required for municipal purposes, I need to have an interest. I would like to know what is meant by “I need to have an interest.”

Second, if I have that interest, I can pay the taxes and then apply, to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to have a conveyance approved. The minister can approve it whether or not I become the owner of that property. That is what I understand the parliamentary assistant’s statement to say. I don’t have the present legislation before me.

3:50 p.m.

The question I have is this: Is the parliamentary assistant saying that under the present legislation the only discretion the ministry has is either to approve or not to approve the transaction? In fact, is he saying if everything is in order the ministry generally approves this conveyance? If that is the case, is it his concern that, in approving the transaction, the individual who paid the taxes then gets priority over other people who may have had an interest in that land? That is the concern I have.

As I understand this legislation, it wants to give the ministry more discretion in that matter. It wants to give the ministry discretion either to approve the transaction or to give what is called a registration of redemption certificate so that the money the individual has paid for taxes is registered on title and he, with the other people who have an interest in the land, has some priority.

Could the parliamentary assistant answer my question and any other questions my colleagues may have about this legislation? We have some difficulty understanding the sudden necessity and haste involved in this legislation. It appears to be for a specific project, but some of us have always had some concern about rushing in to something to correct a particular limited situation and winding up with a piece of legislation on the books which may not be in the best interests of other situations in the province.

I can see some merit in this legislation. But, under the present legislation, if someone is trying to take over an important piece of land or something, why does the ministry not just disapprove of the conveyance if it already has that power? Is there a concern that if it disapproves of the conveyance, the courts may have to look at it? Then there may be some need for some form of justification or good faith or whatever, as the courts by and large give approval of these things if everything is technically correct. That is what some of my colleagues and I would like to know.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I share some of the concerns the Liberal member has raised, but not all of them. It is my understanding that the concern raised by the member for Ottawa East about whether the ministry makes the conveyance or turns it down is not correct. Under the circumstances as laid out, the person who pays the taxes and who has an interest in the property has a right to a conveyance under the present legislation. That is my understanding and the legal advice I have had. So that slightly changes the complexion of the concern.

My concern, I guess, and I will be brief, is that it should have taken this government so long. It is my understanding that this existing legislation has been in place for the better part of this century. Why has it taken this government so long to deal with what is so clearly inadequate in legislation? I have to presume that perhaps they waited until all their friends took advantage of the loophole in the legislation. Now that they see others getting close to starting to take advantage, they have to close the loophole. At any rate, we are going to support the legislation and hope this government can improve its future performance in terms of this kind of bad legislation.

It is clear that the average person in Ontario was never aware of this kind of legislation. It is clear that some of the lawyers in this Legislature were not aware of this legislation, although others with whom I have discussed it were. It is very clear that this kind of legal loophole has existed for the better part of a century but most people in this province did not know about it and therefore never had the opportunity of taking advantage of it. Let us face it, there have been hundreds of thousands of people who have lost homes and property while on occasion those who had the right legal counsel and who were able to take advantage of a very slipshod law quite easily got out of some rather large and, from their financial point of view, unbearable debts; they ended up with a property free and clear.

It is important for this Legislature to deal with plugging those kinds of holes, but it is rather sad that this government has allowed this kind of thing to go on. It is obvious that the people over there, especially those people who were associated with the ministries that administered this legislation, were aware of it all along.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I too have some questions about this particular general amendment. In view of the fact that we have been urging this government to plug the loophole in the power of sale contained in mortgages, nobody is rushing in to protect those people who far more often lose their homes under power of sale with the inadequate provisions there.

In the limited time accorded to me, I personally have consulted with those who are expert in the municipal field, and I have a concern because I do not know what the certificate gives to a person who pays the taxes. I just do not understand how a lien in those circumstances will stand up, for instance, against the first mortgagee who has not undertaken to pay the taxes and who may be in a position to take possession of the property with the taxes paid by somebody else. I do not understand the ramifications of it, quite obviously, and I am in the position where I do not propose to vote for or against until somebody clarifies that position for me.

Obviously, if there is a specific case in point, I should like to know it; I would like to understand it. But at this point in time, I feel that this seems to have been rushed through, for some reason that I do not comprehend, without the adequate opportunity to study this proposed amendment.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, like the member for St. George, I too am concerned about the haste with which this bill is being addressed.

It seems to me that it is a minor change in legislation that has been requested by the corporate friends of the government. Yet when we bring to the government a request for a minor change in legislation requested by firefighters which would provide major benefit to firefighters who have taken early retirement, or when we bring to the government a suggestion for a change in legislation that would rectify an obvious omission in the Municipal Elections Act requested by the city of Ottawa to close a loophole there, then the government says, “Yes, we know there is a problem,” and it sits on its hands and does absolutely nothing. I think it is a disgrace that the corporate sector gets this kind of immediate treatment, yet the people of this province, the firefighters and the municipalities that are trying to enforce a municipal election spending bylaw, get absolutely no help at all in the same kind of time frame.

It is just an indication of the attitude this government has to the people and the municipalities of the province, and I hope the parliamentary assistant is ashamed.

4 p.m.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about in this bill is the apparent discretion which the ministry has. As I understand it, under the proposed legislation the ministry has two options. One is that it can register in the land registry office a redemption certificate. What I want from the parliamentary assistant is an explanation as to just what happens once that redemption certificate is registered. What flows from that? So what -- so the redemption certificate is registered; what does that mean to the owner who is affected by the tax arrears?

The other option is to convey the land to the applicant as the minister considers just in the circumstances. What are the circumstances under which this is just? What criteria will be used to determine what is just? Will it be the whimsical demands of the ministry at that particular time? What will the policy be to determine what is just and what is right?

Again, we are left with legislation here that really takes away the rule of law and imposes instead the rule of man, where it is up to the individual to determine what is just under the circumstances. It has always been my understanding that for a law to be just, it must apply to everybody. That is the rule of law so that when we look at the law, when we look at the legislation, we know exactly what criteria each individual must meet. We should not be put in the position where one has to run to the ministry to find out just what it is that this person must do for it to be just. Again, that to me is the fundamental question that must be asked by us as one of the opposition parties.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the concerns -- and they are certainly legitimate concerns -- of the members opposite, and I hope I can do that in this speech in winding up the second reading debate. However, if there are further questions after this, I guess it would have to go to the committee of the whole House to get further questions asked and answered.

Let me first outline the procedure that is now in force. When taxes on a property are in arrears for three years, at the end of that period it is registered and, if everything is complied with, one year after the three-year period we come under the procedure that is now in force.

The way the present law is written, at the expiration of the fourth year, which is one day after the expiration of the fourth year, any person with an interest -- and to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), a person with an interest is the owner, any mortgagee or any lienholder on the property -- any person with an interest can come in and pay those taxes. The way the present legislation is written -- I would point out to the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) the legislation really was written in 1935 and an amendment was put in in 1974. which is really what is causing a problem -- as we interpret it, is that if a person who has an interest pays the taxes, the ministry has no discretion at the moment; the ministry must approve the conveyance. The purpose of having the ministry come into the situation is so that the ministry can supervise to make sure the municipality has done everything necessary, and all the procedures have been gone through in order that the land is conveyed.

The way we read the act is, the ministry must approve, and the problem is the conveyance goes with clear title to that person who redeems the land and pays the taxes. In other words, under the present law all other mortgagees would be wiped out; so that a person who walks in and pays the property taxes one day after the fourth year has expired -- and, to the best of our knowledge, we have not had a case of this happening yet -- that person can insist that he be entitled to free and clear title. The owner and other mortgagees would be wiped out. We do not feel that is a proper or just position.

Mrs. Campbell: Why do they not pay their taxes?

Mr. Rotenberg: Sometimes, for whatever reason, people do not. It is somewhat theoretical because, to the best of our knowledge, it has not happened yet.

Ms. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary assistant a question on this?

Mr. Rotenberg: I am delighted to cooperate on this matter. It is up to the Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A very brief question.

Mr. Roy: I just want to understand what the parliamentary assistant is saying. First, an individual must have an interest, minor as it may be, and, second, once the individual goes through the proper technical procedure, the ministry has no discretion. It must approve.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is the way we now interpret the act. It has not been tested. That is where the problem is. I may say to the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and others that this has not arisen because of any request from anybody in the corporate sector, the development sector or the property-owning sector. It has arisen from our field service review of cases that have been drawn to our attention from various municipalities.

There was a pending case, and I pointed this out to the opposition critics last week, which resolved itself. It was a case in Niagara Falls where a matter was coming down, within a few days, to the end of the four-year period. Enquiries had been made and there was a feeling that an injustice could have been done if someone got in ahead of someone else and paid those taxes. Someone with a very minor interest might have taken over whatever was left of this situation. In the meantime, I believe one day last week, the matter went into receivership and somebody did pay the taxes before the fourth year expired. However, had that not happened and had someone paid the taxes the day after the fourth year expired, which was yesterday, there could have been an embarrassing situation where the minister would have had to approve a conveyance to a person with a minor interest and possibly would have wiped out the interests of other people. Fortunately, property owners, mortgagees, lienholders, et cetera are knowledgeable within the law and this did not happen.

As I have indicated, in our review of legislation, this is a matter that was on our schedule for this fall, to have this anomaly in the act changed so that there could not be a case where an injustice could be done and someone could be wiped out simply by this procedure.

As a matter of interest to the members of the third party, this could be abused in another procedure. In the area of checkerboarding -- where we will not give clear title and people have checkerboarded -- an owner, where there are no liens and no other person interested, could simply let his taxes lapse for four years and then insist on a clear title when he should not be getting that clear title. The possibility of that abuse will also not be available under this present situation. It may be available, but the minister has the discretion.

One of the reasons the act was changed in 1974, I believe, was probably that there were a number of properties in northern Ontario where there was no legal way of getting clear title to a property. This procedure was deemed as a way to get clear title for a person who, for whatever legal reason -- I am not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions -- could not get clear title. Therefore, if a person let has taxes lapse the municipality would give him clear title at the end of the fourth year if no one else had an interest.

To the best of my knowledge, no one as yet has taken over a property under this procedure, although there have been a number of inquiries to our ministry from municipalities where this procedure was pending or where someone came in and asked for a title but the matter was settled between the people with interests. We are afraid that tomorrow, next week, next month, or at some time, someone will come in, pay their taxes, not allow the matter to be settled, insist on taking it to court and be able to take over a property where they had only a minor interest and not a total interest. The owner and the first and second mortgagees or whoever might be wiped out.

4:10 p.m.

There are cases where the person who pays the taxes should be legitimately entitled to take over the property. There are cases where the person should not be entitled to take over the property.

The ministry, in a number of parallel situations, does have some discretion and some options in working with the municipality. Under the present legislation, the ministry has to give approval to any conveyance of title under this tax registration procedure. We feel the short-term answer to the problem is to allow the ministry the option of approving that and allowing the property to be conveyed, or more likely to have registered a redemption certificate, which means the taxes are paid. The lien of the municipality, as far as the taxes are concerned, is removed and the person who paid the taxes has that amount added to whatever claim he has to the property.

The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) talked about the power of sale. I assume she means the power of sale where taxes were not paid. I do not know whether she is talking about the general power of sale --

Mrs. Campbell: No. I spoke about the power of sale and mortgages -- to do something about it.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, the member for St. George may be correct, but that is certainly something beyond the control of the ministry I am representing.

A municipality can proceed under power of sale for unpaid taxes or under this basis.

I cannot indicate to the members of the House the exact timing on it but the whole procedure is now being looked at by our ministry. This is one situation where there definitely could be inequities. There may be other situations where there could be inequities. Although it was maybe correct in 1935, in 1980 it may not be the proper way for a municipality to recover taxes by having someone pay the taxes and taking over the ownership of the entire property to the detriment of other interested parties, be it owner, mortgagee or lienholder.

I hope I have answered most of the concerns of the members opposite. This is our short-term answer --

Mrs. Campbell: The parliamentary assistant has not answered mine. What is the value of the lien?

Mr. Rotenberg: The amount put up for taxes by the person who pays off the tax bill. That is the amount of his lien.

Mr. Roy: Does one have priority over a mortgage, for instance?

Mrs. Campbell: What priority does one get with that lien?

Mr. Rotenberg: The lien is paid for by an interested party and would be added to whatever lien, mortgage or whatever his interest was previously. If the owner pays the taxes then he does not have a lien; he has paid off his own taxes. If the first, or second or third mortgagee pays, it is added to whatever interest he has in his property.

Mrs. Campbell: Could I have some clarification, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I can understand there is some --

An hon. member: Answer the question.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to answer the questions that have been put before us.

The person who pays the taxes must be a person who already has an interest in the property. He must have a lien on the property, be it a first mortgage, second mortgage, mechanic’s lien or whatever.

Mr. Bolan: When does he exercise his rights under the lien?

Mr. Rotenberg: The amount that person pays in taxes adds to his lien. It does not change his position in order of priorities; it is added on to his present position. Let us say the first mortgage is for $100,000 and the second mortgage is for $50,000; if the second mortgagee pays $2,000 in taxes, then he has a $52,000 second mortgage. It is added on to the position of the person who pays the taxes. I think the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is with me on this one.

Mr. Kerrio: In other words, we are not going to get too many taxes paid.

Mr. Rotenberg: The municipality has the option of proceeding under another procedure as well. For example, some people do come in and pay the taxes to protect their equity.

I believe I have answered the questions that have been put forward to us except the question by the member for St. George on the general problem of power of sale which is a matter for another ministry.

Mr. Bolan: When is the ministry to give a certificate and when does it use conveyance?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be a lot of questions. Let the parliamentary assistant finish.

Mr. Rotenberg: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concerns and I am quite willing to attempt to answer all the concerns of the members opposite. There seem to be more concerns. I am quite prepared, if the members opposite agree, to have it approved in principle and then take it to committee of the whole House so we can have a better discussion of this matter. Then if the members opposite are not happy, they have the option of turning it down.

One final point: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) has raised a point about discretion. Discretion is exactly what it says. It is discretion which allows the minister not to give the conveyance where he feels that the interest of a party, other than the person who paid the taxes, would be jeopardized by a conveyance. The purpose of the discretion is to protect all interested parties, whoever they may be.

If it seems that justice is properly served by the conveyance being made, the conveyance will be made. Under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, persons who feel they have been hard done by can appeal to the court if they feel they have not been treated properly.

Because there seem to be concerns, if it is the will of the House, I would have this bill go to committee of the whole to try to answer any further concerns.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

BEEF CATTLE MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McNeil, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Henderson, moved second reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, the general purpose of the bill is to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act. The bill changes the method of calculating licence fees to the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association from an amount per head of cattle marketed to a percentage of the sale price, not exceeding two tenths of one per cent, and removes limitations on annual fee increases. These fees are collected by the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and are used to fund the operations of and the services provided by the association to the producers. The act permits individual members to apply for and receive a refund of the fees collected on their marketed cattle. This provision is retained in the amended act.

(The bill also provides procedures and requirements for the livestock commissioner to issue a list of plants approved for the purchase of cattle on a carcass weight basis and to prohibit the purchase of animals for slaughter on a carcass weight basis where the plant is not on the list. The present act does not provide authority to publish a list of plants that are adhering to the regulations pertaining to the purchase of cattle on a carcass weight basis.

The present wording associated with the imposition of penalties for noncompliance with the act and regulations is unclear. The amendments to these marketing acts will provide for the livestock commissioner to hold a hearing before (a) refusing to add the name of a plant to the approved list where a plant has requested to be on the list, or (b) removing the name of a plant from the approved list unless there is reason to believe that such action is necessary for the protection of producers.

4:20 p.m.

Where a hearing has not been held before taking action on either of the above matters, a hearing must be held within 15 days. Where there is not a serious risk to producers, plant operators must be given a reasonable opportunity to achieve compliance with the act and the regulations before a hearing is held.

The operator of a plant is entitled to examine all written or documented evidence before the hearing. Plant operators can appeal the decision of the livestock commissioner to the Agricultural Licensing and Registration Review Board, and the board’s decision may be appealed to the courts.

The amendments are derived from resolutions passed by the membership of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association at their last two annual meetings. I understand the Canadian Meat Council is supporting the amendments.

This bill does not affect the revenues or expenditures of the government of Ontario, except it may generate a slight increase in workload for the livestock commissioner and the Agricultural Licensing and Registration Review Board.

The relative size of any resulting fee increase will be insignificant compared to the market price of cattle. Thus, while cattle producers may be affected by having to pay slightly increased fees, it is judged that any increase would not affect the consumer prices for beef. Cattle producers will benefit from the assurance that packing houses are complying with standardized, carcass-weight marketing procedures, and the credibility of the packing industry will be enhanced with increased packer costs.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) did not remain in the House for such significant legislation as the Beef Cattle Marketing Act and the Warble Fly Control Repeal Act, which we will be dealing with next. But it is always gratifying to see the parliamentary assistant pilot these important bills through the House. I always appreciate having dialogue with one person on that side of the House who I personally feel has an understanding of the agricultural industry.

Mr. MacDonald: Take your tongue out of your cheek.

Mr. Riddell: No, no. I believe in that. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the parliamentary assistant for the very kind words which he had to say about the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) and me, as reported in the Toronto Sun not too long ago.

Mr. MacDonald: Is this relevant to the bill, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Riddell: If the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) were going to stand for re-election, I would be tempted to put a sign on my lawn.

Now to the bill. Really, the Minister of Agriculture and Food is responding to the recommendations and the resolutions passed by the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association. I believe these resolutions were supported by the Canadian Meat Council.

As the amendment indicates, there will be a change in the method of calculating licence fees from a flat rate to a percentage of the sale price of the animal not to exceed two tenths of one per cent. I believe the reason for this is that there have been declining beef sales. There were declining beef sales in 1979 and a predicted decline in 1980; therefore, the revenue coming into the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association was also declining. I believe they want to carry on more promotional work and do some more research to put their commodity on a competitive basis with other commodities where there is quite a bit of research and promotional work done; it does not matter whether it is the dairy industry or the pork industry.

The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association thought they had better get into the act and start promoting their beef in order to have more revenue; so, with the declining sales, they felt this was one way of getting it. Certainly, if the cattlemen do not object to this, I have no objections to it either.

The second part of the amendment is to provide procedures and requirements for the livestock commissioner to issue a list of plants approved for the purchase of cattle on a carcass-weight basis and to prohibit the purchase of animals for slaughter on a carcass-weight basis where the plant is not on the list.

Again, this is something the cattlemen’s association recommended in its brief to the cabinet in June 1980. I guess the request carried over from 1979, when they asked that the Beef Cattle Marketing Act be amended to formally incorporate the procedure of approving packing firms to purchase on a carcass-weight basis and that authority be provided to allow the inspection of scales at all locations where cattle and/or carcasses are weighed for settlement. Again, it is gratifying to see that there will be a standardized procedure by the packing plants in connection with the buying of cattle on a carcass-weight basis. Certainly the credibility of the packing industry will be enhanced by this amendment.

The third part of the amendment is to increase the penalties for contravention of the act or regulation to a maximum of $1,000. This had to be done as the original penalty was so small that it was really insignificant. Certainly anyone who wanted to contravene the act would not mind paying the slight penalty that was imposed on him by the original act. We certainly have no objections to supporting this very important amendment to the Beef Cattle Marketing Act.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have never found it very useful to add to the record when the record is already pretty complete. The parliamentary assistant has explained the purpose of the bill. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has added some comments on it. The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, through resolutions at its annual meeting, has sought this; the Canadian Meat Council approves of it; the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has no objection; so I do not know why anybody in this House should have any particular objection.

Maybe it should be noted, however, that there are some farmers -- I suspect a minority -- who have objected from the outset about a procedure by which the legislative right is given to a group that is not a marketing board -- it is just an association -- for raising levies. There has been a slight rumbling of protest with regard to that. However, the cattlemen’s association is an organization that has always had some internal conflicts with regard to the grass-roots views not being totally and accurately reflected by a rather elitist group at the top. They are in the process of resolving that and perhaps reflecting more accurately some of that grass-roots feeling.

That, however, is another issue. I do not think it needs to be brought into the picture here other than to perhaps acknowledge that there is a minority of views out there that raise questions with regard to legislating the right to raise money in this fashion through an organization that does not wish, up to this point, to move towards becoming a marketing board within the framework of farm product marketing legislation.

I think the amendments are worthy of support, and I am glad to join others in so expressing that support.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Huron-Middlesex, the basic reason for changing the percentage rate not only is to maintain the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association revenues, but also it is believed to be fairer to the producer. The producer will pay according to the value rather than pay the same amount for low-value animals.

With respect to the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), regarding rebateable licence fees, I understand that five per cent have requested that their licence fees be rebateable.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

4:30 p.m.

WARBLE FLY CONTROL REPEAL ACT

Mr. McNeil, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Henderson, moved second reading of Bill 153, An Act to repeal the Warble Fly Control Act.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, the Warble Fly Control Act has been in place since 1947. The development and adoption of a new technology for treating cattle to control warble grubs has resulted in the provisions of the act becoming redundant as a means of warble grub control. Thus, the purpose of the bill is to remove redundant legislation from the statutes.

The Warble Fly Control Act was permissive legislation which provided municipalities with authority to pass bylaws making treatment of cattle for warble grubs compulsory in the spring of the year. Warble grubs, in the larvae stage of the life cycle of the warble fly, infest cattle and adversely affect the rate of gain in beef cattle, milk production in dairy cattle and the quality of hides.

When the act was introduced, the only treatment available was the use of Dare’s powder, which was applied to the backs of cattle as the grubs emerged in the spring. Treatment using a systemic insecticide, applied in the fall of the year, now provides a more effective and efficient method of control and is being widely used by livestock producers.

Bylaws under the act were at one time in existence and were being enforced in most municipalities in which livestock are produced. Such bylaws are now being enforced in less than 30 municipalities throughout the province. The others have simply ceased enforcement owing to redundancy of spring warble grub treatment

Cattle owners are the only members of the public affected by the act. The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, through a resolution passed at its 1980 annual meeting, has requested that the act be repealed.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) is responding to the recommendations of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association in asking that the Warble Fly Control Act be rescinded. Inasmuch as the parliamentary assistant could have just stood up and asked for second reading of this and sat down, I think it requires a little more verbiage than he may have thought it did.

All these bills are given the closest of scrutiny in our caucus and, when the Warble Fly Control Repeal Act comes before the caucus, they want to know why that bill is being rescinded; so I go into some detail in telling them, and I think this is the way it should be.

The Warble Fly Control Act, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, has been in place since 1947, and undoubtedly it was a very useful instrument in the 1950s and the 1960s in controlling warble flies. I know, as I was farming at that time. They would come into my place, and I would have to round up the cattle because of them. The sprayers would be there and they would spray the backs of the cattle; then they would come back in a week or two weeks and do the job over again. It did control the warble grub, and my cattle were very comfortable and put on excellent gains for me. I was able to market hides that I am sure the tanneries liked to get, without all those holes in them. So it did serve a very useful purpose.

However, technology has produced grub control products far superior to Dare’s powder, which the parliamentary assistant alluded to and which is specified as the control product under the act. As well, production practices and intensity of livestock units have undergone substantial change.

A survey was conducted by the livestock branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We have some of those very highly qualified people with us today sitting under the galleries listening to this very important debate. Their survey showed that only eight per cent of the municipalities were enforcing the bylaw. Of those, it appeared that not all of the cattle in the municipality were being treated; so really the act was redundant. In the light of this, it was recommended to the 1980 annual meeting of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, and approved by the delegates, that the Warble Fly Control Act be rescinded on the ground that it only creates an illusion of protection.

Once again, I abide by the wisdom of the cattlemen in Ontario, and I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is commendable that medical technology in the animal field has advanced to the point where they are now able to control the warble fly more effectively than was the case 30 years or so ago and therefore we can render this legislation redundant and wipe it off the books.

However, I warn you, Mr. Speaker. As we all know, sometimes the victim we are attacking develops a resistance to these advances of medical technology and they are able to defeat it; so I have a suggestion particularly for the consideration of the parliamentary assistant. If the warble fly ever appears once again, there is an alternative, and I think it’s a more interesting and more fascinating alternative. For honourable members who have ever been down in the Caribbean area, one of the most intriguing sights they see is an animal out in the field with a bird on its back. As the animal goes ahead eating, the bird sits there and walks around on the animal. The first time you see it, you wonder what is going on. In fact, it is a bird, the name of which I do not happen to know.

Mr. Riddell: We have it here; we call it the cowbird.

Mr. MacDonald: It sits on the animal and it digs the warble fly grub out from the hole in the hide. Rather than legislation, for a government that intervenes in everything --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: A woodpecker.

Mr. MacDonald: Woodpecker, right. If the warble fly becomes resistant to this technology and comes back on the scene, I suggest that we import, if it is necessary, the cowbirds so there will be enough of them to get a free ride on the backs of the cows and dig out the grubs and keep that natural cycle going.

I support the legislation.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the members, but I would just caution the member for York South that at one time we had a real corn bore problem in this province; we imported starlings to cope with that, but they became a regular nuisance. So we have to be careful when we bring in these birds. Once again, thanks very much.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

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

“9a. Section 35 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection 2: ‘Subsection 1 does not apply to an Indian as defined in the Indian Act of Canada who hunts or traps or attempts to trap animals or birds on lands subject to a treaty.’”

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to recognize the rights of treaty Indians on treaty lands to hunt, fish and trap without hindrance under the Game and Fish Act. The minister in his statement today attempted to allay the confusion that he identified. I regret very much that he is not here this afternoon to add to that statement because, from my point of view, the statement made by the minister added more confusion rather than resolving it.

In his statement the minister said that his ministry recognizes the right of treaty Indians to hunt and fish on lands that are not part of the reserve but are part of the area that was surrendered under the treaty. In doing this, the minister clarified his comments in the House on Tuesday in referring to the comments of his parliamentary assistant at second reading.

On Tuesday the minister stated that the ministry recognizes the right to hunt and fish on reserve lands, and has done since Confederation, but he did not deal with the question of unoccupied surrendered lands in the treaty area. His statement today does deal with that, and I welcome it. However, I note the minister in his statement does not deal directly with the question of trapping. He states that, since the matter of trapping is before the divisional court, he does not want to deal with that, but ignores the fact that the reason it is before the division court -- and I can be corrected if I am wrong -- is that the ministry itself has appealed the district court decision.

I do not want to go into the case of Simeon Cheechoo in detail, because it is before the court, but it appears to me that the reason it is still before the court is that the ministry does not want to recognize the right that was accepted by the judge that a treaty Indian has the right to trap on treaty lands without a licence. I think it was a rather fatuous statement by the minister today that he did not want to deal with that because it was before the court when, in fact, it is before the court because of his ministry.

I welcome the position taken by the minister that he is interested in negotiating with the treaty organizations an accommodation and a recognition of the Indian hunting and fishing rights under the treaties. However, I think it is unbelievably twisted logic to say that because the ministry is willing to negotiate it does not want to have amendments to the act, as that would be seen as acting unilaterally, when the passage of the act in the first place was a unilateral action by this government in abrogating the treaty rights that the treaty Indians already had. The ministry can unilaterally abrogate rights, but it does not want unilaterally to recognize rights. That is a rather interesting position to be taking. The treaties, as you probably are aware, Mr. Chairman, differ from one another, but generally they recognize the right of the treaty Indians who are surrendering lands to continue to hunt, fish and trap. With the exception of treaty Nos. 1 and 2, all treaties reserve to Indians the right to hunt, fish and trap or some combination thereof.

In treaty No. 3, it says that Indians will be free as in the past for their hunting and rice harvest. They will be able to continue to hunt, fish and trap “as long as the sun shines and the water runs” -- which is to say, forever.

Treaty No. 9 says that Indians “shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tracts surrendered.”

Section 35 of the Game and Fish Act states: “Except under the authority of a licence, no person shall hunt or trap or attempt to trap animals or birds.”

That section of the act is inconsistent with the treaty obligations imposed upon the crown by the treaties. It is, in itself, a unilateral action on the part of this government. That is why I am proposing this amendment. I want to make clear that in this amendment we are not giving treaty Indians any new privileges. If we pass this amendment, we are simply recognizing rights under the treaties explicitly.

The minister has already said in his statement that, in policy, the ministry recognizes the right. If the minister and the ministry recognize it in policy, then I think they should be prepared to recognize it in legislation.

In the past, members of the government have made statements about this issue which would seem to support the passage of the amendment. For instance, on May 10, 1979, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) stated: “The hunting and fishing rights granted by treaties commonly known as treaties Nos. 3, 5, 9, and Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior treaties supersede certain sections of the Game and Fish Act.”

Interestingly enough, individuals are still being charged under section 35 for trapping and the minister has a case before the courts. Also, the minister who is now responsible for native affairs in the government, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), when he was Minister of Natural Resources, stated on June 28, 1970: “So far as we are concerned, any Indian carrying on hunting and fishing as an avocation for his own subsistence on game and fish is exempt, by the treaty, from any requirement of an Ontario licence.”

What is being proposed in the amendment is simply a legislative recognition of the statements made by these two ministers of the crown.

4:50 p.m.

The case that I referred to of Simeon Cheechoo, a treaty No. 9 Indian, was decided by Judge R. E. Maranger in Timmins in a judgement rendered on August 27, 1980, where he overturned a previous conviction under the Game and Fish Act for trapping without a licence. In that judgement, the judge stated: “As a treaty nine Indian, Simeon Cheechoo is of course entitled to any and all defences that treaty nine provides; it is further agreed that the lands upon which the accused was trapping were parts of the lands ceded to the Dominion of Canada under treaty nine.”

Later, the judge stated he would have to decide whether the province can, by legislation, diminish, regulate, interfere or abridge the right to reserve unto the Indians in that portion of the treaty quoted above. He is quoting from the treaty where it states, “The right to pursue the usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tracts surrendered is recognized.”

The judge went on to say that, in his view, any rights the province would have to so legislate would either stem from section 88 of the Indian Act or from the treaty itself, or by specific agreement with the Dominion of Canada whereby this right would be delegated to the province. There is such an agreement in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but the judge found there was none in Ontario. He stated that under section 88 of the Indian Act the province is required to live by the terms of any treaty. As a result, the judge decided it was quite clear that treaty rights as set out in section 88 can only be abridged diminished or derogated from by federal legislation.

As far as I am concerned, the Game and Fish Act, as a result, is an attempt to require treaty Indians to ask for licences to trap, hunt or fish, which is a complete denial of their treaty right and it is not within the power of the province to do that. If the minister is ready to recognize that in terms of hunting and fishing, I fail to see why he will not recognize it in terms of trapping and I would like to get some justification for that from him here in this House.

If we are going to recognize in policy the treaty Indians’ rights to hunt and fish, again subject in terms of fishing to the federal fisheries regulations, then let us recognize them in legislation. If we are going to recognize those rights, then why do we not recognize the right to trap as well?

In my view, and I think in the view of a number of court decisions, provincial governments have no right to force Indian people to obtain licences because of their treaties and the fact that their treaties were made with the federal government, and yet conservation officers of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources routinely arrest and charge treaty Indians under the regulations requiring licences. In a sense that is a type of harassment, and it is certainly a failure to recognize the treaty rights. I am requesting in this amendment that we recognize that.

Basically what I am asking for is simple: The Game and Fish Act must be amended to ensure that the treaty Indians’ rights are respected. I believe, since this bill is before the Legislature, we now have an opportunity to do that. We are not asking for any concessions or special treatment but simply a recognition that is due already under the treaty.

There might be some objections raised to such a proposal in terms of conservation, and that is a serious consideration. As I said earlier in the debate at second reading, we must regulate the harvest of our wildlife, fish and game in this province, and I support that. I also said we must regulate hunters and fishermen, sportsmen, and I support that still. One might say: “That seems to be a contradiction. How can you say you must regulate in one breath and in the next say we should allow one segment of the population to hunt and fish without regulation?”

I do not think the treaty Indians and treaty organizations themselves are asking for that. What they are asking for is recognition of their right to hunt, fish and trap, to harvest the wildlife. If we do that, we will be taking a first step to rationalizing and making consistent the approach of the provincial authorities towards these rights. Having made that commitment to the recognition of Indian rights, we must deal with the difficulty of arriving at a method for establishing good wildlife management programs when the regulations involved would conflict with treaty rights.

I do not think this as complex a problem as has been suggested by some people. If we recognize that Indians in Ontario have hunting rights with which we must not interfere, this does not preclude Indian band chiefs and councils from setting conservation regulations for their band members by passing band council resolutions to ensure that hunting and fishing are carried on on a sustained- yield basis.

To achieve this end, I think it is incumbent upon the provincial authorities, instead of unilaterally imposing regulations, to enter into negotiations with band councils and treaty organizations whenever their studies indicate that the numbers of a species appear to be dwindling to a dangerous low. This should lead to an agreed regulation of harvest by band members. In other words, what I am talking about is co-management, which I think the treaty organizations support and are quite willing to enter into.

It would not be possible for the Ministry of Natural Resources to set regulations unilaterally any longer but, if regulation of a band’s harvest were established by the band council resolution and that regulation were enforced by the band, perhaps then the limits on the take by band members would be even more effective than it is today.

The reason for putting this amendment before the House is to have the assembly state clearly in legislation that we recognize the hunting, fishing and trapping rights of treaty Indians. I completely reject the argument made by the minister earlier today that such a move would be seen as a unilateral attempt which would somehow interfere with the negotiations going on over this issue.

When the ministry unilaterally agrees, if we want to use that term, to what the other party in negotiations is requesting, it can only be seen as a goodwill gesture and as something that will meet with the acceptance of the other party.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, I can only reply via the minister’s statement of earlier this afternoon, in which I thought he covered the issue as well as possible under the circumstances.

The rights of the Indians have not been abrogated by the Game and Fish Act. As the minister said today, section 88 of the Indian Act specifically provides that provincial legislation is subject to treaty rights. Furthermore, Bill 59 already has had approval in principle; it has had second reading. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others, the amendment proposed by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is out of order, because we are now in clause-by-clause discussion of the bill. It already has had second reading; therefore, his amendment is out of order. It is dealing with a section that is not included in this bill.

Mr. Bolan: With respect to the statement made by the minister this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed to see that the minister is not here to defend that statement. He certainly knew there was to be such an amendment brought forward. When something of such significance is to be dealt with by the Legislature of Ontario -- and I say this with the greatest of respect to the parliamentary assistant -- one would expect the minister himself to be here to face the brunt of this and to stand at the point of the sword.

5 p.m.

Nevertheless, I must look at it this way. I think we would be doing a disservice to ourselves and to the people of this province if, having thought it out, we were to conscientiously pass what I would consider to be legislation that would not be sound in terms of a conflict with another legislative body. I am concerned about this act flying in the face of the two acts referred to by the minister, the British North America Act and the Indian Act. It is my fear that we would be doing nothing more than inviting all kinds of difficulties in the future with respect to this amendment if it were passed today.

The other point I wish to comment on, and I mention this in passing, was raised by the parliamentary assistant. Of course, Mr. Chairman, it is for you to give this weight and consideration, but Bill 59 deals specifically with certain issues; in no way does it deal with section 35 of the present act. What this does is add another section completely to the bill. That was not the intention of the bill. It is not the intention of the proposed legislation. My understanding of it is that we cannot deal with something by way of amendment which adds or creates something that is not the subject matter of the bill. That is something, of course, for the Chairman to consider.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague the member for Algoma for ceding the floor to me.

There are a number of points I would like to make on this matter. First, if there is any redundancy or confusion between federal statute and provincial statute, it exists at the present time because of the wording of the present statute and because this government has refused to amend the present statute. That is where the conflict comes. It is only by adopting the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Algoma that we will clear up that confusion. That is the only way that will be done in legislative terms because what has happened, both in terms of legislation and in terms of action, is that the province has intruded into an area where is has no jurisdiction.

The very case that my colleague brought up was a charge against a treaty Indian under the Game and Fish Act. If section 35 of the Game and Fish Act does not apply to treaty Indians under its policy, why has the Ontario government not only charged the person involved but also, when that charge was dismissed in court, appealed it to a higher court?

What we are hearing from the minister, from the minister’s parliamentary assistant, and from the Liberal Party so far, makes little sense to me. What we have here is an attempt by my colleague the member for Algoma at concurrent legislation. It is obvious that the provincial government has the jurisdiction and the right to enter into the field of regulating game and fish but, because federal statutes and treaties have pre-empted that regulation in one area as it affects native people -- Indians as defined in the Indian Act -- we are attempting to rectify in this legislation a long-standing jurisdictional intrusion by the provincial government.

The third point I would like to make is one that I find has not been answered. Like the previous speaker, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan), I find it nothing short of scandalous -- I suppose I’ll use that word rather than cowardly -- and very strange that the minister would make a statement in the House before question period and not be here in the Legislature this afternoon when the matter that he spoke to in his ministerial statement is up for debate in this House. I find that offensive to this Legislature. I find that a flaunting of ministerial authority.

When we are debating this bill, we have before us in this House not one minister of the crown in his place. We have one minister of the crown floating around in the background, but we do not have one minister in his place. With all due respect to my friend the parliamentary assistant, for whom I have a great deal of respect -- I have learned over the nine years I have been in this House that he is a shrewd fellow in many ways -- when we have a matter of this importance, a matter of fundamental rights, and do not have the minister in his place to debate or defend his position and to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague, it is an absolute neglect of his duties to this Legislature as the minister. I feel that very strongly.

I hope the minister will get up on Thursday and make another statement to the House and will be around when we are still debating this section of this bill, whenever the next session of legislation dealing with the Game and Fish Act comes up.

In the minister’s statement there is an inconsistency in that he says, as a matter of policy, he recognizes that status Indians who are parties to treaties have treaty rights remaining for hunting, fishing and trapping. He says that very clearly at the beginning of his statement. When I read that, I said to myself: “Gee, that is a big step forward. That is a public admission by the minister. Maybe we do not need the legislative guarantee that my colleague from Algoma is seeking.”

Then we go over the pages and begin to see that whole syndrome of the Minister of Natural Resources is reinforced by the ministry with respect to the qualifiers. The qualifiers come thick and fast. In fact, they qualify away many of the intentions the minister says he has at the beginning of his speech. If I may say so, that is the very reason the native peoples of this province, particularly in Treaty No. 3, Treaty No. 9 and the Robinson-Superior Treaty have now taken a stand where they will reject interim, piecemeal and compromise suggestions put forward by this ministry, because they no longer trust this ministry and they know that what the minister says on page one is denied on page three. That is why we need legislative guarantee to ensure the integrity of the treaty and the federal acts that are passed where this government should not be interfering.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment in reaction to the comments of my colleague the member for Nipissing where he says that in his view such an amendment would put this act in conflict with the federal act. I can only state that in my view it would agree with section 88 of the Indian Act. It would not be in conflict, because section 88 of the Indian Act states that the treaty provisions must be adhered to. That is what this amendment is about.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on the point of order?

Mr. Renwick: What point of order?

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant said he felt it was out of order.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: If I may speak very briefly to the point of order, I agree the bill is quite clear that section 35 is not open in the bill that is before us.

Until this afternoon at shortly after 2 o’clock I would have been very concerned as to whether or not it was in order for us to propose such an amendment. The minister -- who is not here now of course -- made an extended statement and provided us with extended documentation this afternoon on the whole question of treaty rights and hunting, fishing and trapping law enforcement. I’m sure he well knew, and the minister’s parliamentary assistant must have known, we were going to move an amendment with respect to the very question which is now before us. It is the question which is now disputed at this late hour in the afternoon by the parliamentary assistant as to whether it is in order or not.

I am not certain whether the parliamentary assistant was in the House this afternoon at shortly after 2 o’clock or whether he heard the minister’s statement. The whole purpose of his statement was to deal with the proposed amendment by this caucus with respect to the rights of native peoples under the Game and Fish Act. I can’t conceive that this was to be other than a persuasive document so that we would not introduce these amendments.

In this context, it is important that I respond to some suggestions by members of the opposition that they would introduce an amendment to the Game and Fish Act that would exempt status Indian people from section 35 of that act, a section which requires all persons to have a licence to hunt game in Ontario. Nothing in this indicates that the minister did not consider it to be quite in order and quite proper that the matter be dealt with under this bill.

Let me make a second point on the point of order. The minister decided to introduce, disguised as a series of piecemeal amendments to the Game and Fish Act, certain very substantive rights. He then proceeded to tell us in the committee of the whole House that it would be out of order for us to deal with anything but the section of the bill which is before us. That does a disservice to what we are attempting here and what our obligation is as members of the opposition to deal with this bill.

My colleagues and I don’t care where you deal with it, as long as you want to deal with it. But don’t try to pretend that you can produce this bill before us and not deal with the fundamental question where every single clause in this bill, in the revised statutes of Ontario 1970 as amended, can be scrupulously examined. I am quite certain that many of them raise serious questions with respect to the native peoples in Ontario.

By coincidence, the members of the select committee on constitutional reform this morning received the answer to a specific question we had asked of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff when they were in front of us. We asked what the position of native peoples in Ontario was respecting fishing and game rights. The ministry has responded. All the members of the select committee on constitutional reform have before them meticulous documentation with respect to which sections do and which do not apply to the native peoples in Ontario.

There is a long list of those which the ministry, in its gracious beneficence towards the native peoples, indicates do not apply. There is an equally detailed list which is much more destructive of the native peoples’ rights which they pretend to say does not affect their interests and rights.

I am simply saying that for those reasons at this point in the day, whether or not the legalistic technical argument could have been put to subvert the debate in this assembly, that had to be dealt with the last time we debated this bill and not at this point in time when the minister has involved himself to provide us with all of this information. The minister left his parliamentary assistant -- and I know he will understand the way in which I use these phrases -- in this lame duck position where he can’t adequately deal with it and must seek to hide behind some kind of argument that I would expect my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. C. Taylor) to have put to the House in order to subvert the processes of the assembly.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I know you are anxious to make a ruling on this. I must support the position taken by my colleague from Nipissing that section 35 of the original bill is not before the House and has not been opened for amendment.

The bill has been approved in principle, after some considerable debate, and frankly I would submit to you the amendment itself is out of order. I am concerned about taking that position of course, because a good many of my constituents are Indians and have been concerned about this matter for a long time. Even looking at the amendment before us, I would much prefer that an amendment of that importance would be the subject of a bill by itself, even a bill brought in under private members’ circumstances so that we could talk about that to the exclusion of other matters.

The amendment as it is phrased may not in fact remedy the situation that my constituents find themselves in, since in most respects they are not considered treaty Indians and their rights are not based on treaty. I don’t want to enter into the arguments but simply want to say that the rule which, as I understand it, does not open matters in an amending bill which are not in the bill itself, probably is a sensible one. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you have no alternative but to rule the amendment and those others which we have been given notice of dealing with the same matter, out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on these points? If there is no other comment, I have allowed the members considerable leeway on discussion of this amendment because I was fully aware when it was placed that it pertained to a section which was not included in section 9 of the bill.

I looked through some of the other proposed amendments, because according to the standing orders it is suggested that members, if possible, present future amendments to the chair, and I have difficulty with some of those because they pertain to sections in the bill.

However, after hearing the discussion on this amendment, listening very closely, I feel that because section 35 of the act is not included in section 9 of this particular bill I do have to rule it out of order.

5:20 p.m.

Are there any further comments on section 9?

Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a change in my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that new section 29a(4) be amended by inserting clause (a) after the words, “make an order,” and adding as a further clause the following:

(b) designating areas or municipalities in Ontario in which the prohibition set out in subsection 2 does apply, notwithstanding clauses (a) or (b) of subsection 3.

Subsection (4) will then read as follows: The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order,

(a) designating areas or municipalities in Ontario in which the prohibition set out in subsection 2 does not apply;

(b) designating areas or municipalities in Ontario in which the prohibition set out in subsection 2 does apply, notwithstanding clauses (a) or (b) of subsection 3.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I think you will find this amendment is in order. I have distributed copies of it rather freely in the last couple of weeks to members of this Legislature, Albeit the one you have before you is slightly changed in wording, it will have the same effect on the bill.

It is fairly clear what I and my party are attempting to do in this amendment. This section 29a is the new section and is taken almost word for word from the private member’s bill which was submitted by my colleague from Etobicoke (Mr. . Philip) and passed by this House. At that time, we were exceedingly anxious to get this bill passed and presented a bill which obviously had the support of all members in all parties in this House.

It has become apparent that the legislation would be improved by a further amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to give somewhat more flexibility to the minister at least in one respect. This section 29a provides that no person shall trap or attempt to trap any animals by means of a body-gripping trap or a leghold trap. Certain exemptions are given in this bill. We have had a great deal of discussion about those parts of Ontario. An amendment by my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Wildman) would have made it clear that our native people would have had trapping rights in any location. That is still clouded.

However, in addition to that, this section gives an exemption on the use of leghold and body traps to persons who hold a licence to hunt or trap fur-bearing animals and to a farmer who uses a body-gripping trap or leghold trap on his own lands in defence or preservation of his property or in circumstances that are referred to in section 58(6) of the act. In addition to that, the minister may designate other areas or municipalities where this prohibition on the use of these types of traps will not apply. This too makes eminent sense because there are municipalities in the north and elsewhere in Ontario where it is desirable to permit trapping, perhaps even indiscriminate trapping, and using the leghold or the body-gripping trap.

However, what is missing in the section of the bill, as we see it, is the right for the minister -- and perhaps it could be done by some other authority -- to designate areas or municipalities where even the farmer or the trapper would not be able to use the leghold or the body trap.

The intention of our amendment is that the minister would use this to designate areas around cities or, for that matter, cities themselves where a leghold or a body trap would not be used. It is certainly not the intent that there be a wide application of this, nor should there be. There are places like the city of Toronto -- which, incidentally, had to get a private bill through this House to prohibit the use of the leghold trap -- and other cities which are totally urban areas, adhere it is desirable to prohibit the use of leghold and body traps for obvious reasons. There are other areas immediately adjacent to these urban centres where it may be desirable to prohibit the use of these types of traps.

Just to indicate how serious this issue is, I have a letter here, dated September 22, 1980, from Mrs. Mary Gill who is the humane education chairman of the Welland District Humane Society. I would like to read some of this into the record. She says:

“I have compiled a list for you of leghold trap incidents involving domestic pets. These cases all occurred in the 1979-80 trapping season. The list is:

“1. A dog in the Stevensville area was shot by a farmer who found the dog in his trap. The dog lived next door to the farmer, but he would not call his neighbour to ask him to remove his pet from the trap. He shot the dog instead.

“2. Two dogs, in two separate places in Fonthill, were caught in a trap. Both dogs suffered since the traps were not checked regularly and the dogs were in the traps for more than a day. Both dogs required ongoing veterinary care over a period of several weeks. Both dogs lived but had to have toes removed from their feet due to the infection.

“3. A cat in the Doan’s Ridge area of Welland was caught in a trap and brought to the shelter by the person who found it. It received veterinary care for a cut foot and was later adopted.

“4. A dog on St. David’s Road in Thorold was caught in a trap. He was released almost immediately and did not suffer any physical injury.

“5. A Great Dane was caught in Effingham Road. He also lost toes, as did the other two above-mentioned dogs in the Pelham area.

“6. A dog caught his foot in a leghold trap on Bishop Road in Welland. Its leg was fractured and the leg had to be placed in a cast.

“7. A cat was caught on Beatrice Street in Welland. She was a stray and the trap caused a severely broken leg, so the Humane Society put her to sleep.

“8. A dog was caught on Kilts Road off the highway to Wellandport. He had to have $150 worth of veterinary attention. The owner spoke to us at one of our displays at the Seaway Mall and indicated that traps are set in the woods no more than 50 feet from her property every fall. The property is owned by a farmer who allows trappers to use the woodlot for trapping.

“9. On Feeder Road in Wainfleet traps are set in the water, but because the Feeder dries up part of the time, the traps are exposed. This lady lives beside the Feeder River and had a cat caught in one of these traps. It was so badly injured it had to be put to sleep. This lady stopped to talk to us at one of our mall displays and indicated that now her next-door neighbour is also setting traps on his property. She is very concerned, since she has six children who play near this area which borders her backyard.

“10. In the Pelham area, a lady, who also stopped at a display, indicated that she has a small creek run along in the woods just behind her property. Every year traps are set in this area no more than 100 feet from her backyard.

“11. The most unusual case we had told to us at one of our mall displays was the following. A man who lives near a wooded area in Port Colborne said that last autumn a hunter caught his foot in a leghold trap which he did not know was placed on that property when he had asked for the neighbour’s permission to hunt.

“These cases are only ones which were either reported to the Welland District Humane Society or told to us at one of our humane education displays. Needless to say, many cases are not reported at all.”

I read that into the record to indicate clearly the kind of problem that exists with the indiscriminate use of leghold traps by either a trapper or a farmer.

I hasten to admit that this problem can never be totally solved because you have to balance one against the other -- the right of people to trap and the right of farmers to trap those animals which may be doing damage to their property. But, having said that, surely there should be the right within the bill to designate certain urban areas or areas immediately adjacent to urban areas, where there could be a prohibition on trapping. I thought it could be done in other ways, but I think this is the best way.

5:30 p.m.

We can give some powers to the local municipalities to pass bylaws, but I assume what would happen in this case would be that the municipalities would determine what area, if any, they would like to have designated where the use of these types of traps would be banned. They would make representation to the minister and he would consider their request and determine the wise course on whether a ban should be applied in a particular area or not.

This amendment still would not prohibit the trapping of animals which may be doing damage to the farmers’ property. They could still use the box trap. I am sure many in this House are aware that this is what is done in the city of Toronto. The humane society here provides them at a nominal rent; I believe it is $5 a week for a box trap. They catch the predators they want to catch with these, but they don’t inflict any suffering upon the animals caught in that trap, as do the leghold traps.

Incidentally, I don’t know what the interpretation of the word “farmer” is in this act. I would be glad to hear the definition from the parliamentary assistant. Certainly it doesn’t indicate in the definition what a farmer is, but it is generally considered a person who has perhaps two acres of land or five acres of land. He is probably considered a farmer if he has a certain amount of agricultural production. Without any definition, it is very difficult. It permits traps to be set on small holdings which are even in the centre of urban areas and causes this kind of suffering to the animals.

I picked out of the St. Catharines Standard just the other day a picture taken in Vancouver, where they are apparently having the same problem. It shows a woman with her cat and the trap which had been set next door to her, right in the urban area.

The parliamentary assistant made some reference, when he spoke on second reading of this bill, to section 33 which has a subsection 6(30) which gives the minister the power to “regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession or use of traps.” He said that could look after this situation.

After some discussion with some of the interested groups and those who had discussed this with officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, I can say that is not the intent of that section at all. It is to change the snare section. It does not say anything about certain areas or municipalities or anything of that nature. The real intent of that was to provide that if new types of traps came along they would be able to regulate them. It would also give the minister the power to prohibit certain people from having possession of traps where they are shown to have repeatedly broken the laws.

It is in this section where any exemption should be given. It is in the section now where the exemption is given. It deals with the municipalities, it deals with areas and if we want to provide authority, as I say we should, for the minister to designate certain municipalities or certain areas where leghold and bodytraps should not be set, then this is the section to do it. We should not leave it to another section which is very vague and where the intention is not there, and where a municipality would not see written into it the right to make that request or grant the power to the minister. I discussed this with a lawyer and he agrees with me that clause 30 of subsection 5 is a very ineffective clause to be used in that manner. That is not its intent.

I wish to conclude by saying that I think there is a real problem that this bill ought to address. That is the problem of leghold traps or body traps being set in populated areas. It seems to me that somebody should have the power to make the exclusion. Because of the population, because of the danger which exists to pets, because of the danger which exists to children -- let’s make no mistake about it, that danger does exist -- the minister or someone, preferably the minister, should be able to say in that particular area box traps or some other types of traps must be used to minimize the danger to pets, to animals and to children in the area.

I hope the parliamentary assistant will be willing to accept this. It is very seldom that the apposition parties want to give additional power to the minister. I would think he would be flattered by our suggesting this. But more than that, I would think he would recognize the wisdom of this amendment and support it when it comes to the vote.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, I realize what the proposed amendment does. Basically it makes it more and more impossible to use leghold traps. There already is an exemption right now under subclause 29a(2) which says: “No person shall trap or attempt to trap any animal by means of a body-gripping trap or leghold trap.” It is my view and the view of my party that this goes far enough with respect to the use of leghold traps. As such, we will not support the amendment.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have not been able to listen to all the debate on this act to amend the Game and Fish Act, but I feel the farmers’ concern about this amendment should be expressed. I hoped some of the farm members of the Legislature would express the farmers’ concern. I can speak from personal experience. Believe me, I am also expressing the concern of many farmers in my area.

There is a creek called the Black Creek, which runs through the Hay swamp, which is an outlet for all the tile drainage on the good farm land in the part of southwestern Ontario where I farm. There are beaver in the swamp. How they got there is a question. I have been told that some time ago the Ministry of Natural Resources got the beaver started in the Hay swamp, for whatever reasons. Now the beaver are there, damming up the Black Creek while one watches them work. I paid out a substantial amount of money about two or three weeks ago to have that Black Creek cleaned out so it could continue to provide the outlet for the tile drainage. But I am told the beaver are putting the dams back in as fast as they are cleaned out.

The municipality said they would welcome anyone to remove the beaver by whatever method in order to have the Black Creek continue one of its primary functions in that area, that is to provide the outlet for the tile drainage on that rich agricultural land. So I would hope that if it requires a leghold trap or a bodyhold trap to get rid of these beaver, the farmers would be allowed to use them.

5:40 p.m.

Better still, if Ministry of Natural Resources people put the beaver there, then I would think they should come and try to trap the beaver in whatever way they want to trap them -- if they can catch them alive, all the better -- then fly them back up into northern Ontario. I do not suppose northern Ontario would mind having more beaver up in the area, but we certainly do not want them down in our area where they are doing untold damage by damming up the municipal outlets for all this tile drainage water.

I feel it is very important that I express the farmers’ concerns and some special consideration be given to the farmers so they can trap the beaver which are damming up the water and not allowing the tile drains to function properly.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the previous speaker, in rural areas in northern Ontario we have exactly the same problem he is talking about, beaver that are nuisances and cause a great deal of damage to agricultural land and so on. I see nothing in the amendment proposed by my colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that would prevent a farmer from having that kind of nuisance beaver trapped out.

Surely, under the proposed amendment, the minister would not designate a rural municipality. That is not the purpose of the amendment at all. The purpose is to deal with urban areas. I really do not see the connection to the amendment for the arguments made by my colleague from Huron-Middlesex.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak to the proposed amendment? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, first, for the benefit of the member for Welland-Thorold, a farmer is defined in the present act under section 1(6). If I may quote:

“A farmer means a person whose chief occupation is farming; and, one, who is living upon and tilling his own land, or land to the possession of which he is for the time being entitled; or, two, who is a bona fide settler engaged in clearing land for the purpose of bringing it into a state of cultivation.” So the act does define farmer.

We cannot agree entirely, although we understand the member’s concern, especially in the urban and urban fringe areas, but the purpose of section 29a is to prohibit with certain exceptions the use of body-gripping and leghold traps, and is the amendment to the act introduced by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

I think the member for Welland-Thorold said, “We want to contribute something.” I think they have contributed a lot by what is commonly known now as the Philip bill, which is largely recognized as a very humane piece of legislation. But the member for Welland-Thorold would further amend this section by having the minister make exceptions to the exceptions noted under subsection 8.

He tells the House that his advice from the legal people is that what is proposed in the bill is not the best. Of course, that is a matter of opinion. But our solicitors, who have been dealing with these kinds of matters almost on an hourly and daily basis, tell us it is not a bad law but it is certainly complex and tortuous and would likely be poorly understood.

We also believe it is unnecessary because, as the member himself mentioned, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations regulating, restricting and prohibiting the possession or use of any trap. I believe that is under section 33, subsection 5 of the act, so really his amendment is unnecessary. This certainly covers the amendment proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold fairly well, but in addition to that, section 93 of the act -- as a matter of fact the very last section -- provides that any regulation may be limited territorially. Section 2 would take care of any concerns he has with regard to section 29a.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the parliamentary assistant if he would state categorically that it is the government’s view that subsection 5(30) does, in fact, give the minister the power to prohibit the use of leghold or body traps in specific areas of this province -- of course I am particularly concerned with the areas around urban centres -- and that will give him power to exercise that authority? I would like a straight statement from the parliamentary assistant on that.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, the member for Welland-Thorold wants it straight from the shoulder and I had to sidestep a body check first to get at it.

Of course it would not be the minister but the Lieutenant Governor in Council who would have the authority. In my opinion, between the two sections -- section 33(5), “regulating, restricting or prohibiting the possession or use of traps” and the very last section of the present act, “any regulation may be limited territorially” -- the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the power to regulate in the manner that would satisfy the concerns of the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I want to switch to a different topic under section 9 of the bill, because we are still on section 9.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It deals with section 9 but does not deal with this proposed amendment?

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let us put this proposed amendment, unless there is somebody else who wishes to have some discussion on this amendment. All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment to the new section 29a(4) will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Foulds: When we get to the vote on section 9 of the bill, if I could have your attention, I would like to put a proposal to you and to the House, Mr. Chairman, that we divide section 9 of the bill because it is a very peculiarly drawn section. This one section of the bill amends two different sections of the original act.

5:50 p.m.

Three subsections are added to section 24 of the original act. The section after the series of five tiny dots in the middle of the page amends section 29 of the original act. I would like a division so as to split the vote on the amendments to section 24 of the act from the amendments to section 29 of the act. I find that most peculiar draftsmanship on the part of the ministry in bringing forward this bill. I would like our privileges protected so that we can vote on two clearly entirely different matters.

I would like to speak to the matters contained in the first three subsections that amend section 24 of the act. Frankly, I want some clarification of those three subsections that now define “chase” and introduce the use of the words “licence to chase raccoon at night” and “chase fox, coyote and wolf.”

I was under the mistaken impression that the barbaric habit of fox chases was not common in Ontario and not legal, but obviously it is. I am told there are even certain members of the Legislature who dress up in breeches, boots and red jackets and are members of the London Hunt Club. I understand there are some members of the Legislature who are members of the Eglinton Hunt Club. This has all come to my attention since the introduction of this bill and the sections of the bill.

What I would really like is a clear statement from the parliamentary assistant about the purpose of this amendment to section 24 of the act because when one reads the original section 24 of the act it has to do only with hunting raccoon at night, if I am not mistaken. These amendments may be out of order. It seems to me to be very strange that you would amend a section of the bill that has to do only with hunting raccoon, to broaden and include chasing of fox, wolf and coyote. First of all I would like you to rule, Mr. Chairman, on whether or not these sections as presented by the ministry are in order. It is my conviction they are out of order.

If the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Algoma, dealing with section 35, is out of order and has been ruled out of order by this chair, I believe these subsections, which have nothing to do with the section of the original act, are also out of order and the minister needs to introduce a new section to the bill.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the member for Port Arthur that these are really not amendments, but additions to the sections in question.

Mr. Kerrio: Are your riding with the hounds or going to the dogs?

Mr. Yakabuski: Riding to the hounds, I hope.

Mr. Foulds: I want to know why you add to section 24 of the original act, which has to do only with hunting raccoon, a new section which has to do with fox chases or wolf chases. Why is there not a new section entirely because it deals entirely with a new matter?

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, at the outset when we talked about Bill 59 we talked about bringing the act up to meet present-day needs, desires, et cetera. I think this is what we are trying to do. The present act does not distinguish chasing from consumptive hunting, for instance. As a result, following game is unlawful outside of the closed season. With recent increases in fur prices, seasons have become more restricted for some species, so that the species may be conserved and the quality of fur may be assured by restricting the taking of such species for those periods of the year in which the fur is in prime condition.

Unfortunately, traditions in hunting, or at least chasing these same species have been developed at other times of the year, at times outside of those periods in which fur is prime. This type of hunting, particularly for raccoon for which a closed season has recently been imposed, has been terminated. It is the contention of wildlife managers that chasing seasons might be established for the species mentioned for the following reasons:

1. For each species there exists a period of time which now or in future may be the only time in which a person may be allowed to actually appropriate it by hunting with firearms or traps. 2. Outside of the period I have just mentioned, there is a time when the pelt is not prime but also when the animal is relatively unimportant to or actually removed from its young. At this time the animal could be tracked, followed or chased as long as the animal was not killed or removed from its normal habitat. Thus a chasing season could be provided upon these conditions when the demand is present.

Some members of the opposite side of the House have stated the demand, particularly in southwestern and southeastern rural ridings, is considerable. The tradition of chasing is well established, particularly for foxes and raccoons during the late summer months. While animals being chased may occasionally be killed, and I say occasionally, I am told this is not only rare but generally undesirable.

Few owners of valuable dogs want them actually to come in contact with a fox or raccoon. To allow this to happen would mean that the dog, vaccinated or not, would have to be quarantined. Of course the animal being chased also does its best to avoid contact.

Mr. Wildman: Is that right?

Mr. Yakabuski: Absolutely. You want to hear that one again? I do too. Of course the animal being chased does its best to avoid contact also and this behaviour has provided many tales of almost unbelievable skills exhibited by the prey. You have to get out there and see this happen, some of you urban dwellers.

There are few rural localities in which this activity takes place that do not possess a famous fox, raccoon or coyote that has often exhibited outstanding skills at tantalizing its pursuers then disappearing like a ghost. One famous coyote in eastern Ontario, and of course, there are a lot of them out there, you people would say, but one coyote in eastern Ontario invariably led the hounds a merry chase then vanished. It was said that one astute observer finally discovered that the animal had learned to walk along the railway rails, thus avoiding the hounds picking up the scent and baffling the hounds that were following. That’s the kind of coyote we raise in eastern Ontario. They are astute and sharp.

In any event those who have developed this particular type of hunting tradition have vowed that such results of the hunt constitute a rule rather than the exception. The section provides an opportunity for regular chasing seasons to be established, thus providing for this rich rural tradition.

In conclusion, I would like to assure the members that we are talking here about a controlled activity. This does not provide for 20 or 30 dogs, like the member for Algoma mentioned, chasing bears through schoolyards or the killing of deer by dogs outside the open season. Those who follow the sport of chasing know they are under a magnifying glass and that the government will quickly curtail such activities if abuses occur.

6 p.m.

I would beg those members opposite who would remove this section for what they feel are humane reasons, to contact some of the hunting organizations in question and consider their proposals. I did exactly that, long before this bill came before the House. When I did get the other side of the story, and sometimes you have to put yourselves in the other person’s shoes, I had an entirely different view of the whole sport of chasing, training, field trials, et cetera.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I believe the parliamentary assistant has just made my case for this section being out of order.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not find anything out of order in the section. You do not have to vote for it, and we can take the vote on the two sections separately, that is, the top part and the bottom part, but I do not see anything out of order in regard to it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, what the parliamentary assistant has just told us is that they are introducing an entirely new section to the act. If I interpret him correctly, he is saying that heretofore these traditional chasers have not been regulated. They have, in fact, been legal because the law was silent upon the matter. Is that not correct?

What he is doing with this amendment is attempting to give the ministry some power to regulate the chasers, to license them and to regulate them. I understand that argument, but if he is doing that -- and I think that is a small step forward, not for mankind, but for the fox, the coyote and the wolf -- it should be a new section of the act. It should not be an amendment that deals only with hunting raccoons.

The Deputy Chairman: I think we will worry about that later. I do not follow your argument on that point. In my opinion, they can add them wherever they wish to the bill. There may be some logic in putting them in certain places, but it is a matter of draftsmanship only, as I see it. However, you wish to continue this after supper; so, it being six of the o’clock, I do now leave the chair to return at eight.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.