Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COUNCIL FOR FRANCO-ONTARIAN AFFAIRS REPORT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in announcing that later today, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), I shall be tabling the fifth annual report of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs.

Le rapport fait état de plusieurs réalisations au cours de la dernière année dont la décision du gouvernement de mettre sur pied, à Alfred, un collège de technologie agricole de langue française. Qu’il me soit permis de souligner l’apport précieux que le coordonnateur provincial des services en langue française a reçu du Conseil lors de l’organisation des colloques dans huit municipalités de la province. Ces colloques s’adressaient aux cadres dans les bureaux régionaux sur les services en langue française. L’aide du Conseil a été fort appréciée.

Au nom de mes compatriotes de langue française et du gouvernement ontarien, je félicite le Conseil de son excellent travail.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, based on the statement made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) on October 10 about an energy conservation program in this province, I would like to provide to the members some indication of the direction we are taking on amendments to the building code.

The amending regulations will be based on the federal guidelines, Measures for Energy Conservation in New Buildings. We were preparing to proceed with them early this fall. However, my staff has just recently been advised of and invited to a meeting, called by the chairman of the federal government’s standing committee on energy conservation, to consider the revisions that may be necessary to the federal measures as a result of public comments on them.

This further review of the federal measures may delay the implementation of our regulations and we may not meet our year-end target for the new regulations. In any event, we hope this delay will not be for more than a month or two.

When we do proceed, we will be introducing regulations in two stages. The first stage will include regulations that will update energy conservation requirements now in the building code for housing that is not more than three storeys in height nor more than 6,000 square feet in floor area. This includes apartment buildings within the same height and area criteria. The first stage will also add energy conservation requirements for commercial and light industrial buildings that generally have a relatively simple set of internal environmental conditions to satisfy, such as human comfort in apartment and office buildings. Warehousing will be covered as well.

The second stage will include regulations that encompass buildings that are more complex from an energy conservation viewpoint. Included will be buildings where there is normally a variety of internal environmental demands to be satisfied; for example, hotels, where environments range from the comfort of the individual in his or her room to meeting rooms and convention facilities, pools, saunas, fitness centres, commercial kitchens and underground parking.

Other examples of complex building environments are industrial and manufacturing processes that produce heat that must be dissipated or can be used for heating requirements elsewhere in the buildings. Energy conservation requirements in the latter instances would apply only to the system designed to utilize the generated heat and not to the process itself.

Due to the variety of internal environmental demands, buildings such as hospitals, recreation centres, laboratories and freight depots will also be included in the second stage, together with a number of other building types that are too complex to be included in the first stage. It is our intention to resolve requirements for the more complex buildings by the end of next year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, following on my colleague’s statement, two weeks ago, another of my colleagues, the Minister of Energy, announced wide-ranging new initiatives designed to reduce our province’s dependence on oil, create new jobs and increase export market potential for Ontario technology. This afternoon, I would like to detail for the members the $10 million energy conservation and oil conversion program which is part of that 10-point, $165 million energy package.

As the honourable members are aware, my ministry has been actively involved in promoting energy conservation within Ontario’s industrial sector since 1975. We pioneered the energy bus concept. To date, this computer-equipped vehicle has performed energy audits for some 1,300 Ontario companies and has identified energy savings of $50 million per year for these companies. The government of Canada has adopted Ontario’s idea and is implementing it across the country. Governments in Europe, Asia and the Caribbean are also actively considering the use of this concept in their jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Industry and Tourism also played a key role in getting the Woodex process into actual use in northern Ontario. As members know, Woodex is a pelletized fuel made in Hearst, Ontario, from sawdust and wood waste. As part of our pulp and paper program we encouraged Abitibi to enter into a long-term contract with Shell to use this alternative form of energy and convert its boilers at Iroquois Falls. This breakthrough would not have occurred without some incentive from this government.

In recognition of the increasing importance of energy costs to a competitive industrial structure, we created a special unit within my ministry, the energy group, whose mandate it is to promote practical energy conservation measures for Ontario manufacturers. The energy group participates in the Canada-Ontario bilateral energy demonstration program, operates the energy bus and offers display space to Ontario manufacturers of energy efficient equipment.

I would now like to outline how we intend to build on these initiatives to reduce Ontario’s industrial energy bill. Our two goals are to substitute from oil to other fuels and to stimulate investment by Ontario companies on energy saving equipment and processes.

Given that industry uses 550 million gallons or 2.5 billion litres of oil each year, oil substitution is critical to Canada’s overall objective of achieving energy self-sufficiency. To the extent that we can reduce this consumption of oil by substitution of natural gas and other more abundant fuels, we will have reduced our dependency. Moreover, at current prices, there is a cost saving of some 25 cents for every gallon of oil displaced.

To realize energy savings, individual companies will have to undertake significant capital investments to convert existing oil-consuming equipment to alternative fuels; implement waste heat recovery and manufacturing process modifications with clear energy recovery benefits; and install energy controls, and building insulation and efficiency improvements.

2:10 p.m.

Many of these essential investments have not been made because income-generating investments often provide higher returns than cost-saving investments; payback periods often stretch beyond the typical five-year capital budget, and some companies simply lack the financial resources. Therefore, we have decided to introduce a direct financial incentive to stimulate industrial investment on energy-efficient equipment and processes and to accelerate the shift from oil.

This new initiative, the industrial energy conservation and oil substitution program, was originally announced by my colleague the Minister of Energy. It will be initially funded at $10 million and will commence immediately. I would now like to outline the main features of the incentive program.

First, the incentive will apply to approved projects that can demonstrate a return on investment -- net of the incentive -- in not longer than five years. Second, the incentive will take the form of a reimbursement grant to a maximum of $50,000 against expenditures incurred by a company. Third, the incentive will cover 2.5 per cent of the costs of converting from oil to natural gas or other energy sources. And fourth, the incentive will cover 50 per cent of the cost of equipment replacement and manufacturing process changes.

To ensure that smaller firms that do not have in-house expertise on energy investments enjoy full access to this incentive program, we will contribute 50 per cent, or up to $1,000, of the cost of an energy-saving implementation plan prepared by a professional consultant.

This program will be administered by the energy group of my ministry, working in close co-operation with staff of the Ministry of Energy. The brochures, application forms and simple contract documentation will be widely available before the end of next month.

I am confident this program will do much to reduce our dependence on oil and upgrade the energy efficiency of Ontario’s capital stock. I look forward to an enthusiastic response to the program by manufacturing firms throughout the province.

TABLING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I might take this opportunity to draw to your attention, as well, a point of procedure.

You decided yesterday that in accordance with an objection raised by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) I was obliged to table a compendium following what you deemed to be a policy statement by my ministry last Thursday. As I indicated yesterday, we did not choose to challenge your presumption or decision that it amounted to a policy statement, and in so doing we agreed to file the information.

I noticed in today’s Votes and Proceedings the information we filed was shown as simply a sessional paper. To comply with the ruling you made, which I do not necessarily agree with, I think it should more properly be listed as a compendium so that the record stands completed. Perhaps you might have that correction made.

Mr. Speaker: I will take a look at it. I consider anything a minister says is a statement of policy. You were giving a record of stewardship as a minister, and I would consider that to be a matter of policy. I think everything that all ministers say is important, and I treat it in the same light.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not want to prolong the discussion, and I chose not to yesterday. May I simply say I think it is important that the record at least show that policy in my view is the subject matter of a great number of statements. Occasionally a statement by the minister may be a report on the results of that policy. It is a resulting document which shows performance; it is not a statement of policy, but a statement of results. I think that much affects the kind of decision you may make with regard --

Mr. Speaker: I think you have to leave to the chair the discretion of dealing with each individual circumstance as the chair finds it. I did that in this instance. I am satisfied that you have complied with it.

DEBATE ON CONFEDERATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have been in receipt of a bound copy of the debates on the constitution which took place between May 5 and May 9, 1980, and I thank the House leader for my personal copy. I am disturbed, however, that copies are being made available only to the leaders, the House leaders and whips of the three parties in the House, particularly in view of the fact that it was my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who, with myself, ensured that this debate would actually take place. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to intercede with the House leader to ensure that every member of the Legislature could have a copy of this bound volume on the constitutional debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my friends in the official opposition and others in this House would take a bit of exception to my friend’s last statement that his party was responsible for this debate. This debate came about because all parties in this House wanted to have the debate. Never at any time was it opposed by any party in this House.

The only difference of opinion was as to what time it should occur. I think my friend would have to agree at this point that it was our insistence that it be held -- and I believe the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) held this point of view too -- closer to the Quebec referendum, and that was when it was held. I think that remark is certainly a little off the mark.

As to the request that all members have bound copies of the constitutional debate, I would be happy to take that under consideration. I just felt that those who had played some part in the organizing of the debate might like to have a copy. All members of the House will be getting bound copies of all the debates, as my friend knows. However, rather than send them to everyone, if those members of the House who would like a bound copy would let us know, we will make it available to them.

ALLOCATION OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform members that in question period yesterday we had 16 new questions and 16 supplementaries, in the course of which 15 members questioned eight different cabinet ministers.

There is only one area where I think the process might be improved, that is, in the length of the answers and the repetition contained in the answers. If we can keep that in mind, I think the question period will be much more productive and we will have much wider participation.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Will he inform the House as to what provincial policy will now be with respect to the Toronto Island matter? Is it the intention of the minister simply to allow the writs to proceed or is it his intention to bring before this House a bill that would be acceptable to the majority of elected members in the House which could guarantee the survival of the island community?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague the Attorney General has had an opportunity to read the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I haven’t had an opportunity to read it and I would like to see it myself before I decide on some definitive action, but I will tell the member what I am in the process of doing.

I am in the process of sending a letter to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, indicating again to him the fact of what has happened, which I am sure he is well aware of, and asking if he and the council of Metropolitan Toronto would not think it would be in the best interests of the whole community to withhold any action on having those writs served until the Swadron commission reports.

I think Barry Swadron as the commissioner has held a very full and far-ranging inquiry and his report will be well worth reading by members of this House, members of the community, members of Metro council and members of the Toronto city council. I think the report should be read before any action is taken. That report will not be available until the end of November. It will not be available until then because he has held a very full hearing and given everybody a chance to appear and to talk to him and also give himself a chance to investigate fully the total matter. I think that is good.

What I am going to suggest to the Metro chairman in the letter that I am at present having typed and sent to him is that Metro council not take any action until after the Swadron report is filed.

2:20 p.m.

It is very important that that action be taken by Metro council since they are the instigators of the writs; they alone, I believe, can ask the sheriff not to carry out their original wishes that writs be served. They can ask and they can immediately stop any action at present. I do not think anyone in this House wants any action to be taken at this time, and certainly not while the Swadron commission report is still being prepared. I think that is the action that should be taken now.

In answer to the member’s question as to taking some action that will solve the matter ultimately, I presented some action with which the member disagrees in Bill 5. I would like to see what Swadron finally has to say on the whole matter after his very thorough study. The ball really is in the hands of Metro council and the Metro chairman at this time. They have it in their power to ask that those writs not be served at present until Swadron has reported, and I hope that is the action they will take.

Mr. S. Smith: Whether Mr. Swadron, the minister’s appointee, eventually agrees with the minister or not will be of considerable interest, I am sure, but as far as requesting Mr. Godfrey to take no further action, the mayor of Toronto already made that request. Mr. Godfrey says he rejects it, it is totally in the hands of the sheriff and “it is no longer in the hands of Metro council.”

Given that the minister himself made a similar request at the beginning of the summer that the matter remain in abeyance until Mr. Swadron has reported and Metro again rejected that, what reason does the minister have to believe Metro will take a different point of view? Why does the minister not accept responsibility and bring in a bill that is acceptable to everyone that will keep the community intact at the very least on a temporary basis, so we can then have a final answer either when a new government comes in or when the government changes its mind?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Given the speeches my friend and the members of his caucus make, as do I, about co-operation with those in local government who are charged with certain responsibilities, we first of all have to ask Paul Godfrey and Metro council what their official reply will be. When we get that back, we can then speculate or decide what course of action to take, but I do not want to prejudge.

He has never said to me, “I will not take any action at this time not to have those writs served.” When I get that word personally, I will then proceed to think of what the next steps are.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the minister table the reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I will be happy to table it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact the Metro chairman has taken an attitude like Pontius Pilate and is trying to wash his hands of the whole matter on the grounds that it is in the hands of the sheriff, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs communicate with the Attorney General, who is on his left, and get an assurance that the provincial authorities now involved through the sheriff’s office will not implement those writs of eviction, and that no action will be taken by provincial authorities against the islanders pending the Swadron report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Attorney General and I have been consulting on this matter ever since the decision was brought down yesterday. Since I am certainly not a lawyer, as my friend knows, I would hesitate to get into any matter requiring a legal interpretation. I am going to refer the member’s question about the actions of the sheriff to my colleague, the Attorney General.

Mr. Cassidy: I redirect the question, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think from some of the statements attributed to the Metro chairman that he might be slightly mistaken as to the role of the sheriff’s office in this matter. It is the sheriff’s responsibility to carry out the orders of the court, and as Metro council are the applicants, it is totally within their purview either to request or to indicate to the sheriff that they do not want the writs of possession exercised at this time.

It would be quite improper, in my view, given the ruling of the Court of Appeal, for the Ontario government to attempt to direct the sheriff not to carry out an order of the court and we have no intention of doing so.

We remain optimistic that Mr. Godfrey will see the wisdom of instructing the sheriff not to proceed until the Swadron report has been received. If such an undertaking is not forthcoming, then there are other options open. We will consider those at the appropriate time.

DEATH OF HARPREET FLORA

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I must confess it is a very difficult and sensitive question, and I have a lot of concern about asking it, but I will try to put it as well as I can.

A member of the Solicitor General’s office and I personally were approached by some members of the East Indian community just a few minutes ago about the death of six-year-old Harpreet Flora in very unusual circumstances. I wonder whether the request of the community for an autopsy prior to the burial of this young lad could be acceded to in some way and whether the Solicitor General is aware that the community seems to lack confidence in the way in which the investigation has been conducted.

I am sure neither the minister nor I would lack confidence in the police; I simply say the community does, on the basis that it is alleged the investigator has not actually gone to the scene himself but is relying on drawings. There are also a number of other alleged discrepancies.

Is the minister able to assure the House that the worries of the community will be taken very seriously and that the investigation will be complete in every respect, watched over by the Solicitor General himself as might be required, and that an autopsy will be performed in a satisfactory manner?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns about the sensitivity of this issue, arising as it does from a terrible tragedy. The death of any young child, particularly in circumstances such as this, causes concerns and great anguish in the hearts of the family and their friends and neighbours.

I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression at the present time that an autopsy has been performed. However, I understand there is some concern about the pathologist involved and whether there should be some further involvement of another pathologist to confirm the findings. We are considering that at this very moment.

I certainly wish to do everything within my power to alleviate the concerns of the East Indian community. I will be meeting with them on Thursday afternoon, along with senior representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, to assure them that the investigation that has been carried out and is being carried out is a very thorough one. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition as to the importance that must he given to maintaining that confidence which must exist, particularly in the context of this tragedy.

HOSPITAL INTERNES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to direct to the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

The Deputy Premier will know that at five o’clock on Thursday of this week, internes and residents in hospitals across the province are due to go on strike. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) appointed an assessor to make recommendations about their situation, received those recommendations and then washed his hands and did nothing. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has not been available for two days to answer questions in the Legislature about this very difficult issue. Yesterday we heard the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) claim she was unaware of an agreement reached in July that has apparently been backed away from by management.

2:30 p.m.

Will the Deputy Premier say who is minding the store and who is responsible for ensuring that full medical service will be available to the public and will not be jeopardized by the withdrawal of service by the internes and residents because of the impossible situation in which they have been put?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the Premier did speak to this particular matter yesterday, indicating there were meetings which did involve the Minister of Health. I am at some disadvantage without the Minister of Health’s being here, but no doubt he will be able to report to the House on his return on Thursday.

Mr. Cassidy: The strike deadline has been set for five o’clock on Thursday. The internes now face a situation where an agreement, hammered out in July, has apparently been abandoned by the administrators of teaching hospitals at the behest of the medical faculties or the Minister of Colleges and Universities or some organ of the Ontario government.

The status of those internes and residents has been clearly established by arbitration over many years. The assessor found that those internes and residents work as employees, providing health services for an average of 70 hours a week. Why does the government allow the red herring that these doctors are students to threaten the operation of the most important hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I repeat that the Minister of Health will be in his place at two o’clock Thursday, which is three hours before the particular time to which the member referred in his question.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in connection with what she said yesterday. She indicated, and I am quoting now from Instant Hansard, that the entire matter of the Teplitsky report has been referred to the clinical education subcommittee of the Ontario Council of Health.

Is the minister aware that on Wednesday of last week when the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario met with the clinical education subcommittee, it was discussed and decided that whereas that subcommittee had a mandate to discuss those educational matters that are part of this whole area, both sides -- PAIRO and the clinical education subcommittee -- agreed that the subcommittee had no place and wanted no part of the issue which is threatening the province with a withdrawal of services?

In view of that information, can the minister indicate on behalf of the government who is acting where and what the government is proposing to do to avert this, since it is clear from the clinical education subcommittee’s point of view it has no responsibility and sees no obligation in dealing with the employee-employer matters which are at issue in this threatened withdrawal of services?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the results of the meeting between PAIRO and the subcommittee last week. I am also aware there are consultations going on amongst three ministries, but specifically between two, which are dealing with this potential problem.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a supplementary from the member for Oshawa if it is directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Breaugh: I would love to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The reason is that the Deputy Premier has referred that for a decision or some comment from the Minister of Health.

Mr. Breaugh: It does not seem to make much difference whom one asks. Can the minister provide us with some rational explanation why, four months after an agreement was reached in this matter, she is still leaving it until three hours before a strike occurs? Is she really happy that residents and internes will continue to be exploited and with the fact that she has now sent this off for an academic discussion when there is a strike deadline of Thursday afternoon?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that there was a letter of understanding exchanged between the two groups. I am not aware there was a tentative agreement reached or an agreement of any kind. There was a letter of understanding submitted but, whether that was responded to positively by both groups, I cannot tell the member at this point. I have seen a copy of the letter of understanding which was submitted to both groups. I am aware that is in existence; I do not know of any agreement.

EMPLOYER-SPONSORED TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who does not understand when an agreement is an agreement, arising out of questions I raised in this House yesterday. I asked the minister why the number of women involved in the employer-sponsored training program had fallen to four from five over the past year, while the number of men getting employer-sponsored training has gone up to 1,500 from more than 600 in the same period of time.

When the minister told the House yesterday there was full openness in the employer-sponsored training program and that it is equally applicable to men and women, was the minister aware that according to her own staff almost five per cent of the applicants for employer-sponsored training are women, yet the approval of women applicants is only one quarter of one per cent? Why were only four women accepted into the plan where, if they had been treated on the basis of equality in relation to their applications, there would have been at least 75 women accepted?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the applicants for employer-sponsored training within any establishment are accepted on the basis of their desire to move forward in a skills training program, the basic education which they have, and the appropriateness of their skills in pursuing the course which they have suggested would be fitting for them within that establishment.

The program is equally available to men and women. If there has been a major increase in the number of applications for the employer-sponsored training program, I shall be delighted to look at that. If, as a result of that increase in applications there would seem to be a decrease in the number of acceptances, I would like to look at that as well.

My concern at present is that not enough women are applying for these programs under employer-sponsored training. We have been doing a fair amount to try to encourage women to look at nontraditional jobs and specifically at the avenues available to them for improving their status through such programs as EST. We will continue to do that, but we have not set a quota for women in any of these activities at this point because I feel, unfortunately in many instances, setting a quota establishes a maximum rather than a minimum.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister should be aware that if women are not applying to the proportion of 50 per cent of the positions available it is because it is 20 times as hard for women actually to get accepted into the program as it is for men.

Is the minister aware that contrary to her statements frequently repeated in the Legislature, when we talked to the director of the employer-sponsored training program in her ministry and asked why it was that women did not get accepted, we were told: “Women are not entering the skills training program because they are afraid of moving parts and equipment. It takes a particular kind of cat to survive on the shop floor”?

Is that the reason women are not being accepted into the program? What is the minister going to do to get rid of that kind of retrograde treatment of women and the denial of equality for women in acceptance to employer-sponsored training?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The suggestion that the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who has responsibility for this, is in some way opposed to women’s involvement in any kind of activity is ludicrous. I deplore the language that has been quoted in this House, and I shall investigate that. That kind of language is not particularly helpful.

I believe there is some concern on the part of women about nontraditional jobs. I wish there were a way in which we could be more effective in overcoming, first, some of the peer pressure and, second, some the family pressure related to the entrance of women into those nontraditional areas. We are exploring that at present and trying to find a way to encourage women to stop paying attention to their fathers, like the leader of the third party, who caution against moving into that kind of activity.

NONRESIDENT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Since it will take at least a year from the time the Nonresident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act is proclaimed until the minister determines the seriousness of the foreign ownership problem, and since many new, large holdings of farm land are being consolidated and are in the process of being sold to foreign investors, is he prepared to amend Bill 60, as is strongly requested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to place an immediate freeze on foreign and corporate absentee purchases of Ontario farm land during the period in which he intends to study the problem?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have made the honourable members aware that this bill will be proclaimed effective December 1. This was the bill that went through the Legislature earlier in this session. The regulations went through cabinet last week. A director, Mr. Vern Spencer of my ministry, will be appointed effective December 1 to take over those responsibilities. At this time, there are no plans for amendments to this bill.

Mr. Riddell: Does the minister intend to make any amendments to the bill before it is proclaimed, making it mandatory that the minister appoints a director and that he appoints inspectors, rather than having permissive legislation?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No. I think I made it quite clear, I have no intentions of amending the bill. I have assured this House I will appoint a director, but I am not going to put in the bill that it is compulsory.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I have a private member’s bill before this House that calls for the mandatory appointment of a director and inspectors; also that there should be a freeze until we find out exactly how much of this land is going. Both these issues have now been endorsed by significant majorities by the board of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which has said, if the minister does not take appropriate action, he should resign. Is the minister going to implement that? Or is he willing to accept the suggestion of the leading farm organization that he should resign?

Mr. Speaker: I think that has already been answered.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered most of the member’s question. I am sure the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) would want to tell you I suggested to members of the Huron County Federation of Agriculture that they approach their own county with the possibility of bringing in a private bill of this nature, but he did not mention that.

COSTS OF POLICING

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), concerning the funding of police forces in this province and, in particular, the unacceptable difference in the level of per capita grants given by the province to municipalities with regional municipal police forces.

Last Friday the Solicitor General stated, “Due to other grants from the province, municipalities are not prejudiced by the provincial funding arrangements.” He is familiar with the report of Mr. Pukacz, his special assistant, whose report incidentally was presented to him exactly two years ago today. Can the minister inform us whether in his calculations he included such grants as resource equalization, per capita general, per capita density, transitory and special assistance which, Mr. Pukacz stated, “cannot be considered as a general contributing component of provincial support for policing”?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Solicitor General, in answering this question very thoroughly last Friday, indicated he had discussed the matter with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), and the Treasurer had indicated there were compensating grants available. Surely the kind of question the member is asking of me should he directed either to the Solicitor General or to the Treasurer.

Mr. Eakins: What steps will be taken by the ministry to reform the work of police acting as transporters of prisoners to and from the courts and acting as guards in the courts? What changes are going to be made in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am not sure any changes are going to be made at the moment. We are considering the whole question, and we are reserving a number of options; one of the options would be to continue in the manner in which it is being done now.

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, I raised with the Premier a report on hydroelectricity costing and pricing, dated August 1980. Apparently the Premier knew nothing about it. May I read one sentence in it to the Minister of Energy: “Ontario Hydro will be sending its report to the government shortly” -- the Premier obviously had not received it -- “and has been advised by the government that before the determination is made there will be further consultation with the Ontario Municipal Electric Association end the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario.”

Is the minister aware that this report, which is an interim report that is going to be finalized and presented to the government shortly, envisages a decrease of $33.2 million or 1.8 per cent to OMEA urban utilities and an increase of $24.4 million or 4.2 per cent to the rural customers? This widens the differential in open defiance and conflict with the government’s stated policy. Does that concern the minister?

Second, will the minister please explain why it is that in finalizing the report before it comes to the government it has been circulated to the OMEA and to the major power consumers, but the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Association of Rural Municipalities -- all those bodies that speak for rural Ontario -- have never heard of the report and are not being consulted? Is this the way the minister treats consumers whose fate is being decided by others?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the exchange between the honourable member and the Premier yesterday, there was some suggestion that the member was reading from a report that dealt with the subject of the differential as between urban and rural. The point the Premier was making was that we have not seen that report. By the member’s own admission, that report is not the report on the differential; it is a report on costing and pricing which is a followup of the whole matter that was before the Ontario Energy Board for several months, at which all organizations to which he made reference made their representations. That report from the Ontario Energy Board was sent to Ontario Hydro for discussion and for some type of final response to the government. One can gather from the very sentence that the member has read that it has not yet been sent to the government.

In summary, yesterday I think the member was perhaps confused in his questioning in that he was making some reference to another report. That is the report we are expecting from Ontario Hydro dealing with the Hydro board’s response to the April policy statement of the Premier which requested a reduction in the differential; that is a report we do not yet have. There is also the referral to Hydro of the results of the Ontario Energy Board hearings on energy costing and pricing to which he now makes reference and which obviously would indicate Hydro has been doing some consulting prior to finalizing its report,

With respect to whether other organizations have had an opportunity to attempt to influence the final outcome, I would remind the member that the Ontario Energy Board held all kinds of public hearings. I am sure all organizations and individuals had an opportunity to attempt to influence the decision of the Ontario Energy Board at those hearings.

Mr. MacDonald: I wish the minister would not indulge in obfuscation of the issue. This is Hydro’s response to what it is going to do in its rate structure. It is going to reduce the rate by 1.8 per cent to urban residential consumers and it is going to increase it by 4.2 per cent to rural consumers. That is what they are proposing to do.

Does the minister not feel that is in conflict with the government’s requested view to Hydro that there should be a reduction in the differential, not an increase in the differential?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The minister has no difficulty separating the two issues in his own mind. It would seem to me that, in the regional meetings at which some of that material would have been discussed, it was clearly pointed out that Hydro now had this directive from the Minister of Energy as a result of the April statement of the Premier to reduce the differential. It is another thing to be talking in terms of the rate structure, whatever that may be, in the normal way as a response to those public hearings of the Ontario Energy Board. Ultimately these matters will be subject to some further refinement once there has been some determination with respect to the reduction of the differential.

By the very sentence the member read, we do not have the results of Hydro’s determination even on the subject matter of that report, as he knows.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When I returned from Alberta on the weekend, I found that my rural hydro users were very upset about the announcement last week of the 11.2 per cent increase, since they heard the Premier say on April 10, when my resolution was debated here, that rural rates were going to be reduced. Can the Deputy Premier tell me why Ontario Hydro does not pay any attention to the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Unfortunately, we in this House do not have the opportunity to ask questions of the opposition but, if I did have that opportunity, I would ask the honourable member, notwithstanding the fact that he has not been in the House the last few days, why does he not read Hansard? If he had read Hansard he would have seen a very complete answer by the Premier of Ontario on this particular subject.

I am sure the member, as a fair-minded individual who perhaps has not had a chance to get caught up on his reading, will understand in that exchange that the Premier made it quite clear that the commitment he made on April 10 with respect to the differentials still stood. If I can just correct the member, who is making some reference to the announcement with respect to rates that go on every year, as the member knows we have to indicate before November 1 what the 1981 rate structure will be. That goes back to last March or April when the process was started once again according to all the rules and regulations, none of which was news. It was old news with respect to those rates and indeed in no way detracts from the commitment made by the government that the differential would be reduced. We are now waiting for the report from Hydro that was requested at that time.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I object to the indication from the minister who has just answered that the honourable member who asked the question was away from the business of the House in some irresponsible way. I know you are aware, sir, if the minister is not, that the honourable member was absent with a delegation to Alberta representing all parties.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is damned important to the farmers of Ontario. We have had only two supplementaries on it. It is very important to my area, and I would like to ask a question of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: It was raised yesterday.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, again.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Sargent: The point of order is, why can we not talk about important things like the rural hydro rates? I am concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker: It was raised yesterday and we also discussed it today.

Mr. Sargent: Let’s do it today again.

FOREST CUTTING PRACTICES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. When is he going to stop the lumber and pulp and paper companies in Ontario from turning northern Ontario into vast deserts with their clear-cutting operations of literally hundreds of thousands of square acres in the province? When is he going to restrict them in their clear-cutting operations and quit turning northern Ontario into a desert?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I know that my friend the member for Rainy River does not believe that northern Ontario has been turned into a desert. He must have taken a very winding route.

I think I mentioned at the time of the debate on the changes to the Crown Timber Act that one of the things we expected to achieve with the forest management agreements was the method of both cutting and regeneration. I think I have subsequently made a couple of statements along those lines. In fact, in my brief opening remarks last Thursday to the standing committee considering our estimates, I referred to this again.

I have also said on a number of occasions that it is not feasible to restrict clear-cutting to a specific acreage. There are some areas where 100 acres might be too much. There are other areas, depending on the type of soil, the trees and the terrain, where 500 or 1,000 acres is not too much. Of course, a lot depends on the type of reforestation that is going to be practised as well.

As I have said before, I expect the application of forest management agreements to the licensed areas which the pulp and paper companies now have will go a long way to addressing this problem, although I do not expect it will happen overnight. However, there is greater agreement, I may say, within my own ministry between the fish and game people, particularly the game people, and the foresters as to what reasonable arrangements can be made to the mutual benefit of the people who need to use the wood and the people who are using the other resources.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is aware that the forest management agreements do not deal particularly with clear-cutting. Is he aware that his own ministry’s reports in 1976 and 1977 indicate that up to 50,000 acres have been clear-cut? If one does not call that a desert, I do not know what is. Is he also aware that his own ministry’s report says only about a third of the area can be regenerated, but there are clear-cuts of up to 50,000 acres that are not regenerating and that is affecting fish and wildlife as well and is denuding the northern forests? The ministry is not providing regeneration but, on the other hand, the government is giving these companies hundreds of millions of dollars to carry on the way they have. The people in northern Ontario are fed up. When is the minister going to act on these reports from four and five years ago?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can only repeat what I have said, and I question some things the member has said.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Have you seen these pictures from your own ministry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The statement by the member that we cannot regenerate a large clear-cut is not necessarily true. It depends on the method of regeneration, of course. A very large clear-cut on certain types of soil will be very difficult to regenerate itself naturally.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister explain or answer the charge that large areas of clear-cut, combined with his policy of not forcing the companies to clean up the slash from those clear-cuts, result in man-made factors that added to the fire danger this past summer and the large areas of fire? How does he expect to catch up on the backlog of cut forests when the forest management agreements cover only 16 per cent of the licensed areas of the province and cover only 32 per cent of those areas of the companies he has agreements with? In other words, there will be 68 per cent of the companies’ limits that have no agreements for reforestation.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I indicated in a statement earlier this year when we had signed the first four agreements that there were many more agreements to come because we are only covering four companies and five forests at the moment. However, I expect that we will be signing further agreements in the forthcoming fiscal year and that in probably three or four years we will cover the vast majority of the licensed forest.

As for the clear-cuts having had major deleterious effects on the fires this summer, I think what the member is referring to is the cutting methods themselves, not the size of the clear-cuts. My recollection is that in a couple of areas the large clear-cut areas acted as effective stops for the fires on a number of occasions.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I ask the minister to consider the vastness of the clear-cut areas, and I ask him whether he is aware of the study, by Heeney in 1977, which his ministry has, which shows that only one third of the area in a large clear-cut area could be regenerated because of changes that would occur in the soil or in the topography or because of residual trees left after logging, as the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), has just mentioned. Is the minister not aware of a study which says that only one third could be regenerated and that these clear-cut areas are a tremendous threat to the future of the forest industry in this province?

Mr. Speaker: That was inherent in the question put by the member for Rainy River.

3 p.m.

MINING MACHINERY MANUFACTURING

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that Jarvis Clark, which manufactures mining machinery, an area in which we lead the world in imports, has decided to expand its operations -- as a matter of fact, it cannot keep up with its orders -- and it is going to conduct that expansion in southern Ontario -- in Burlington, I believe? Can the Treasurer tell us whether he has had any discussions with Jarvis Clark about why they would not expand in North Bay?

Further, is he aware that one of the reasons Jarvis Clark gives for moving to southern Ontario is that there are not enough skilled tradespeople in North Bay to meet its demand? Given the fact that there is a community college in North Bay, has the Treasurer had talks with his cabinet colleagues about the provision of programs so that we can meet the demand for skilled tradespeople in northern Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, I am delighted to hear of the expansion. The answer is, I have not talked to the company; the company may have talked to either the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) or the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson).

I talked very recently to machinery manufacturers as a group, along with the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and I was delighted to find the general problem of Canada’s manufacturing industry in the machinery side in an overabundance of orders, something we seldom hear. The real problem they face currently is not so much the shortage of skilled help but the shortage of investment capital. This is, therefore, an area to which we are giving a great deal of attention.

Mr. Laughren: Does the Treasurer not think it is his responsibility to ensure there is balanced growth in this province and there are regional development programs? Is that not the responsibility of the Treasurer, rather than of the Minister of Industry and Tourism or the Minister of Colleges and Universities?

When is the Treasurer going to present us with a regional development strategy that encourages successful corporations or individuals to stay in northern Ontario so that we can have more balanced growth in the province rather than adding to the industrial congestion in the Golden Horseshoe?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As Minister of Economics as opposed to being Treasurer, I quite accept the responsibility the member just stated; that is, to attempt to bring balance to the economy geographically, as well as in other ways.

I would argue that one of the things this government has done that has been very well received in northern Ontario has been to emphasize the importance of the north by creating the Ministry of Northern Affairs and taking, from my regional priority budget, the regional priority moneys for investment there. I believe the ratio of money for the north to the south is 14 to one. The population would be almost the reverse. In effect then, regional priority moneys spent on the north per capita are many times greater than regional priority moneys spent on the south.

COSTS OF POLICING

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General, who has returned. It is a follow-up to the question asked by my leader last Friday and by the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) today to the minister’s colleague the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker).

I have been asked by the voters of Carleton to ask this question on their behalf.

Mr. Peterson: Everyone of them? Thousands of them?

Mr. Roy: Requests just keep flowing in. They have not had a member, but they will get a good Liberal member shortly.

Mr. Roy: What they want to know is, how can the Attorney General on the one hand tolerate the Ottawa-Carleton area having separate police forces for different municipalities and on the other hand penalize them in grants, giving them 50 per cent less in grants? What does he tell the voters of Carleton when Nepean is having some difficulty? There has been a 43 per cent increase in burglaries in Nepean this year. Why is it he does not want to give them the same level of funding he gives regional police forces across this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have a message for the member to deliver on my behalf to the voters of the great riding of Carleton, and that is; if they want to have continued distinguished representation in this Legislature, they had better keep it on this side of the House. Would the member deliver that message? That is the best possible advice the member for Ottawa East could give to those very distinguished citizens of our province, and I really hope the member is sincere about wanting to communicate this message. Is that agreed?

When it comes to these unconditional police grants, the gentleman who is responsible for these grants is my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can I direct a supplementary to the Treasurer with your permission?

Mr. Speaker: Without editorial comment.

Mr. Roy: That is right; without editorial comment, except to say that, with answers like that, we are going to win in Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have a response?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s colleague stated on Friday that there were unconditional grants given to Nepean and the other municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area. What are these grants and what does the minister have to say to these voters, who are paying perhaps the highest rate of property tax in this province right flow?

Hon F. S. Miller: I do not have the detail on any specific grant to any municipality. I deal in the general overall policy and, as the member was told by the Attorney General, my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs administers the program.

Mr. Speaker: Put the question.

Mr. Cassidy: Redirecting to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: A minute ago I heard the Attorney General threaten in the Legislature that the people of Carleton will get second-class service unless they --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DOMTAR DISPUTE

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, a non-by-election question to the Minister of Labour regarding the strike by 1,700 Domtar employees in Cornwall, Don Valley and St. Catharines: Can the minister report to the House what initiatives his ministry has undertaken to try to get the two sides back to the bargaining table and to avoid a lengthy strike like the one in 1976?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, following the conciliation proceedings that took place, mediation commenced; the last two days of mediation were on October 23 and 24 and, as the member knows, a strike was called on October 25. We remain in touch with the parties and, if there is some indication now or in the near future that bringing the parties back together again would be fruitful, I will be pleased to hear from the member or from the parties themselves.

Mr. Semis: Will the minister consult with the Treasurer to ensure that no unallocated portions of the $10.5-million grant to Domtar are issued during the course of the strike to ensure the semblance of complete impartiality during the course of that strike?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fortunately we have the luxury and the pleasure of having the Treasurer here with us today. He has heard the remarks and will give them some consideration.

TORONTO JAIL CONDITIONS

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: In view of the occurrences over the weekend where a justice of the peace refused to conduct bail hearings because of the conditions in which he found himself, which included lack of duty counsel and lack of defence counsel but which also included finding himself in premises where delousing as well as personal searches were performed, will the Attorney General now consider better accommodation to carry out this very important part of the administration of justice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I think the honourable member appreciates, the justices of the peace have been conducting these show-cause hearings on Sundays at the old Toronto Jail to accommodate accused persons who might otherwise have to wait until Monday.

I have not seen the transcript of the remarks of the justice of the peace, but I understand they relate to the cramped accommodation and, perhaps most important, to the lack of public access. Certainly I agree with the principle that the public should have access because of the importance of these proceedings. We are reviewing the matter to ascertain whether better accommodation might not be obtained, and we hope that will happen.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Stong: Is the Attorney General contemplating a change of location within the Toronto Jail itself or a change of location outside the Toronto jail to accommodate this function?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are considering both at present.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment, if I can have his attention.

How sincere is the minister in determining what is in Walker’s solid waste dump when yesterday Walker’s were busy excavating and at least shifting certain materials around all day without anyone there from the ministry to see what they were doing? Does the minister know that when the vice-president of the citizens’ committee, Alderman Woodhouse, tried to see what was happening, Walker’s called in the police and asked that a charge be laid? Will the minister have someone at the site all the time, night and day, to see that the government is not hoodwinked again and that substances are not removed without his knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not have someone there all day. That is a bit ludicrous. The member is asking to have someone at every site in this province. That is precisely what he is asking. I will not do that.

Once the material is removed, one has to take it somewhere. One cannot just remove it and have it evaporate.

Mr. Swart: That has nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, it has a lot to do with it. One has to take it somewhere. That may be news to the member but, when one removes it to take it some place, one must find a licensed site to take it to. That might not be easy to do. If they move the material around, I think, that is essentially their business. It is a solid waste site; it is not a liquid waste site, as we well know. Therefore, there is no reason to think they would take that material to a non-licensed site.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize this excavation is being done to determine if there are drums and tank trucks buried there and what is in them? If there is no one there from the Ministry of the Environment, does he not realize they can be removed and the minister will not know?

From last September until December, chromium sludge from Ford was taken into that site without any testing at all by his ministry. Does the minister not think he should do an in-depth examination to see what is in that site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We are doing an in-depth inspection not only on that site but also on many sites. We are doing an inspection there. They have to find those trucks for us and they have to tell us what was in them; they are doing it for us and they have to tell us.

Mr. Swart: You are trusting them? We have nobody there.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. They have to find them first and then they have to tell us what is in them.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister claims that he was somehow fooled by this firm in the past in terms of putting the stuff in, why does he expect they are going to be any more straightforward in terms of taking the stuff out? Will the minister tell us how many inspectors he could afford to hire to be there at all times during the excavation if he simply used the money he would get by cancelling his silly advertising?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might like to send over to me the waybill he had, and we could deal with those records together.

LIE DETECTOR TESTS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General.

On April 9, 1976, I asked about the use of lie detectors; I repeated the question on November 5, 1976, for a third time on December 10, 1976, again on November 14, 1977, and on November 23, 1979. The minister at an early date stated that a proposal on the use of lie detectors was being developed and that he expected to be able to report to this House in relation to its use. That was dated November 5, 1976. When is the minister going to come down with a policy concerning the use of lie detectors?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the House was advised at some point that the issue we were dealing with was in the context of employment. Any legislation that would be forthcoming would be related to employment standards, and the Minister of Labour would be carrying forward any such policy into legislation if that were the decision of that ministry. My recollection is that the honourable members were advised, since the situation really related to management and employees, that was the appropriate ministry to handle the matter.

Mr. B. Newman: May I simply ask the minister for a general policy from the ministry, not necessarily in regard to employment, concerning the use of lie detectors.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the honourable member’s concern was chiefly related to the use of polygraph machines in employment situations.

With respect to the policy of the ministries of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, it has always been our view that the polygraph machine, if properly utilized by properly trained individuals, is a useful investigative tool. We did not seek to adduce any of the evidence derived from polygraph tests into any court of law as evidence. Again, reflecting on the findings of Mr. Justice Donald Morand and his commission of inquiry into Metropolitan Toronto Police practices, I certainly agree that these tests are sometimes unreliable and should not be admitted in court as evidence. That is the general policy of the two ministries for which I have responsibility.

However, I think the use of polygraph machines in relation to employment situations is a somewhat different issue. While the police will use polygraph machines from time to time as an investigative tool, with the consent of an individual in respect of the application of the test, the relationship between employer and employee is somewhat different. Although it may be alleged the request is for the taking of a voluntary test, the very employer-employee relationship may make it somewhat less than voluntary.

I see it as a principle that must have different application, depending on the context of the use of the polygraph machines.

KU KLUX KLAN

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, a document entitled An Introduction to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was distributed earlier this morning to a number of us in our caucus. I do not know how to characterize the document except to say that, as far as I am concerned, it is hate literature, and since it was distributed here through our postal services within the building, it is within your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to forward the material to you and have you review it with the Attorney General to determine whether prosecution for the distribution of hate literature would be advisable.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into the matter.

3:20 p.m.

REPORT

COUNCIL FOR FRANCO-ONTARIAN AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Brunelle presented the annual report of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, 1979-80.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 248 and 342 on the Notice Paper, and the interim answer to question 334. (See appendix, page 3842.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PLANT SHUTDOWNS AND EMPLOYEE ADJUSTMENT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 20:

That the matter of plant closings, and related issues, be referred to a select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment for its consideration and report as soon as possible; and that the committee have the powers to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant; and that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and that substitution be permitted provided that written notice is given to the chairman of the committee before or early in the meeting; and that the committee be empowered to employ such assistance as it deems advisable, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Internal Economy; and that the committee be composed of 12 members as follows: McCaffrey (Chairman), Cooke, Cureatz, Mackenzie, Mancini, O’Neil, Ramsay, Renwick, Taylor (Simcoe Centre), Turner, Van Horne, Williams.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of success among the House leaders in reaching agreement in ordering the business of the House. I am sure you and all other members would agree. In this instance, however, we have failed to reach an agreement.

It has to do with the designation of the chairman of this very important committee. I want to spend just a moment, sir, bringing to your attention, and to the attention of the honourable members, why we feel, because of an agreement made in 1975 on the just and equitable distribution of these responsibilities, the chairman should come from the Liberal caucus.

The argument, of course, has nothing to do with the relative merits of the gentleman who has been proposed by the government or a nominee who may come from our party. We feel any honourable member as chairman could conduct the business of the committee in an orderly and fair way.

I would like to say, sir, the resolution very properly establishes this as a select committee. It deals with a matter we hope will not be a continuing responsibility of this House, such as the responsibilities taken on by standing committees which normally, as you know, meet during the session itself although they do meet between sessions from time to time.

We have distributed the chairmanships, the responsibilities for ordering the business of the standing committees, by agreement. It has remained unchanged since 1975. The select committees have been relatively stable as well.

There have been three fairly large and important select committees in operation since 1977. The Ombudsman’s committee is chaired by a representative of the NDP, company law by a representative of the Liberal Party, and the Hydro select committee, which began in 1977, has been chaired by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who was nominated by the Progressive Conservative Party.

We feel that was a good selection and, I believe, the conduct of the committee would indicate that was so. But the three basic select committees that have been in operation since 1977 have been the Ombudsman, with an NDP chairman; company law, with a Liberal chairman, and Hydro, with an NDP chairman who was acceded to or nominated by the Conservative Party.

There have been a couple of exceptions beyond those three basic select committees. There was the select committee on the matter of Inco layoffs, which was chaired by a Progressive Conservative. There was the select committee on the provision of health services, which was chaired by a Progressive Conservative. The most recent was the select committee on the constitution, which was chaired by a Progressive Conservative.

We feel that if we are going to distribute fairly the responsibilities for chairmanship, we in the Liberal Party, with the support of the other members of the House, should be able to name the chairman. For that reason I move an amendment to the resolution put forward by the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves that Mr. O’Neil replace Mr. McCaffrey as chairman and that Mr. Eakins be added to the committee.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I agree with much of what my friend has said, but there are a number of problems; namely, that if one looks over the number of chairmen over the last five years, the numbers are precisely the same. If one looks at the change of composition of various committees, one recognizes that there have been five New Democratic chairmen, five Liberal chairmen and six Progressive Conservative chairmen.

What bothers me about the whole selection of chairman is the ad hockery of the situation. Long ago I proposed that it should be done on a rotation basis. That way one gets away from trying to determine who is going to chair a committee. I am one of those people who believes we should have a policy that indicates the order based on the number of members in each party, so that it is not in question and not up to someone to break the tie; that is very difficult to deal with.

Mr. Haggerty: What about seniority?

Mr. Mattel: One can talk about seniority or any system one wants, provided there is a system and not a form of ad hockery, which leads us to this sort of dilemma when both parties want this particular chairmanship. I, for one, do not want it; nor does my caucus want this chairmanship, for some very obvious reasons. We do not want it.

By the way, while we have this nice system going, there is some indication that should the next government be a majority government, members of opposition parties from whatever side of the House might not be allowed to be chairmen. I remind the government of the day that if the combined opposition had taken that approach over these last five years there would not have been one Conservative chairman -- not one. Over these last five years, a chairman could not have been elected. It was only because, on this side of the House, we felt that --

Mr. Havrot: Well.

Mr. Mattel: “Well” what? That is how it occurred. If the member had wanted to vote on it every time, we could have taken every chairmanship.

Mr. Foulds: The opposition could have taken every chairmanship.

Mr. Martel: That is right. So when people say, “We do not want that policy because things might change,” we could have insisted during these last five years that there would not have been a government chairman anywhere.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) did not have anything positive to say in his estimates yesterday, so he should not contribute today.

Let me go back to speak to the government House leader because what I want to see is some indication that the government is prepared to establish some sort of system. What came out of the Morrow report was that there should be a panel of chairmen who are adequately trained to carry out the functions of a chairman.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That excludes the NDP.

Mr. Martel: That just cost the honourable member the vote. I could have insisted we have the chairmanship but we did not want it.

3:30 p.m.

I want to say that the Morrow report indicated we should train a panel of chairmen and draw on that panel; whether it be by experience or whether it be that they achieve certain expertise in conducting the order of business, we choose from that panel. I am asking the government House leader to indicate that the government is prepared to establish that sort of policy so that we do not get into these binds where we have to vote out this person or that person.

I would hope that if we are going to do it today we would establish that policy here and now. I am prepared to allow the government to have the first chairman, but I want the policy decided because that is the only way we are going to get out of these positions. Of course, it has to be based on numbers. With the present make-up, for every four chairmen, two would be PC and one would be Liberal and one New Democrat.

To continue to play the game of ad hockery is unacceptable. I would hope we could hear from the government House leader what he is prepared to do to make sure we have some policy governing the appointments of chairmen.

Mr. S. Smith: It is a question of fairness, really.

Mr. Martel: It is a question of fairness. I am saying it is five, five and six at the present time. They have 58 members. There is something called a numbers game.

Mr. S. Smith: You have the right to it if you want it.

Mr. Martel: I do not want it. I say to my friend that that whole policy, whether it be select committees or standing committees, can hinge on an individual rotation basis or on the total number of chairmen. From that we can continue to pick whoever’s order is next, but surely we have to get out of this bind once and for all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury East puts forward the proposition that we should have some system for choosing committee chairmen. I do not particularly object to that. I think that in the evolution of what is happening around here in the orderly ordering of the business of this House we might come to that kind of position. We certainly cannot decide that today, but, as I have indicated to him on many occasions, I am not adverse to sitting down and looking at that kind of proposition.

We can go through the history of what has happened here on committees. The one thing that struck me was that out of that history one can pull any kind of argument one wants to. We can do that, too, in order to try to establish some degree of consistency to support the position we are putting forward. I realize the official opposition does not accept this position, and that is its right. It is perhaps a healthy thing in this House that everything is not predestined and preordained by meetings before we come into this House. It does not hurt this House to debate this.

Let me indicate to members that for the year 1980 my records show we have 12 standing and select committees of this House. The New Democratic Party has chairmanships of four of those committees: the justice and procedural affairs committees, which are standing committees, and the Hydro and Ombudsman committees, which are select committees. The Liberal Party has chairmanships of four committees: the standing committees on social development, members’ services and public accounts, and the select committee on company law. The government party has chairmanships of four committees: general government, resources and statutory instruments, which are standing committees, and the select committee on constitutional reform. In actual fact, we have four committees chaired by members from the government party, four committees chaired by members of the official opposition and four by members of the New Democratic Party. That would suggest to me we are now starting another cycle and that it would be perfectly logical for a member of the government party to be chairman of this new committee.

Certainly, if it is the wish of this House later to establish another committee, I think we could give the assurance that someone from one of the opposition parties would be chairman of that committee. Therefore, I think I would have to say we are opposed to the amendment.

We are not, as stated by my friend the official opposition House leader, in any way questioning the ability of the people who are named in any of the motions. Particularly I would not question the ability of the person suggested as a chairman in the amendment. But we must be opposed to that because we believe the chairman of this committee should be the person we named in our original motion.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this situation is a very disturbing one because it represents in essence the breakdown of a system which has worked for five years, and that is why we are concerned about it. The actual chairmanship of a particular committee is of lesser importance compared to the principle involved. There was an agreement to share these matters equally. Even if one looks at the calendar year rather than the life of the Parliament, as the honourable minister wishes to do, and sees four, four and four, adding in the select and the standing committee chairmanships, he must surely admit one of those NDP chairmanships was a Progressive Conservative choice --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: They exercised their option. They had an option and they could have had it. My friends in the NDP do not know that, but perhaps they were not there. It was a PC option -- the House leader knows that -- and the PCs chose to put the member for York South into that position. They should know that.

Mr. Wildman: That doesn’t make him a Tory.

Mr. S. Smith: No, of course it doesn’t make him a Tory. When I say it was a Tory choice, I meant the Tories made the selection. Good God, unbelievable. The member for Algoma thought I was accusing the member for York South of being a Tory. I said it was a Tory selection, not a Tory member. Good God. One would think there would be at least a minimum requirement before entry into this House.

I would point out that the public accounts chairmanship is an automatic chairmanship that goes by tradition to the official opposition. That is why the Ombudsman went the other way; it was to balance that.

Intersections.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister should know better than to get into this kind of thing. This is not a political --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, could I please address you, if nobody else?

Mr. Speaker: I wish you would. I am the only one who is listening to you.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is no particular pleasure to be standing in the House arguing over the chairmanship --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, can you keep control of the House? Will you try to do something to keep control of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Talk to me. I can hear you now.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is that it is no particular pleasure to have to rise in the House to haggle over a committee chairmanship. For five years this Parliament has operated by decent agreement among decent people. The House leader of the government knows that no matter how we cut it, in the life of this Parliament, in the life of the two minority Parliaments or even in the calendar year, this is the time for either the NDP or the Liberals to appoint a chairman of this forthcoming committee. That is what it is.

Obviously, we can vote in this House if we wish and call today Wednesday if we prefer. By majority vote we can suggest that today is Wednesday, if the members like. If that majority vote occurs, then we will have to live with it. But I say to the members very simply this: This is not a political issue; this is a matter of how this House operates. Frankly, the chairmanship is not that important to us, but the principle of how we are ordering the business of this House is important to us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: The unmitigated arrogance of the people opposite is one of the reasons they are going to be replaced by the people of Ontario very shortly.

It is, as I say, no pleasure to have to address that group of barking seals and roaring hyenas. I simply put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that fair is fair. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows we have ordered this House by agreement now for five years. If he wants no longer to order this House by agreement but to have every agreement come in front of this Legislature for a vote, let him continue as he is doing. We will take every agreement in front of this Legislature for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I tell you that might come.

The House divided on Mr. Nixon’s amendment to the resolution, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Blundy, Bolan, Bradley, Breithaupt, Conway, Cunningham, Eakins, Epp, Gaunt, Haggerty, Hall, Kerrio, Mancini, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, B., Nixon, O’Neil, Peterson, Reid, T. P., Riddel, Roy, Ruston, Sargent, Smith, S., Stong, Sweeney, Van Horne.

Nays

Ashe, Auld, Belanger, Bernier, Birch, Breaugh, Brunelle, Charlton, Cooke, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Germa, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Isaacs, Johnson, J.,

Johnson, R. F., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Laughren, Leluk, Mackenzie, Maeck, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Newman, W., Norton, Parrott, Philip, Pope, Ramsay, Renwick, Rotenberg, Rowe, Samis, Scrivener, Smith, C. E., Snow, Stephenson, Swart, Taylor, C., Taylor, J. A., Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Warner, Watson, Wells, Wildman, Williams, Wiseman, Ziemba.

Ayes 29; nays 66.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the resolution be concurred in?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay,”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Renwick: Before the orders of the day, I move, seconded by Mr. Ziemba, that for the remainder of this session we dispense with statements by the ministry on Thursdays.

Ms. Speaker: The motion is out of order.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, which was enacted in 1973, authorizes a municipality to borrow money from the province at a current interest rate of only eight per cent. The municipality then lends these funds at the same rate to owners of shoreline properties that have been damaged or eroded for works designed to rehabilitate and protect such properties and for repairs to buildings and structures. The act requires that a municipal council obtain the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board before it passes a bylaw authorizing the borrowing of moneys from the province for the purposes of the act.

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973, was given first reading by the Legislative Assembly on June 19, 1980. In his introductory statement, the minister indicated that the main purpose of the bill was to correct problems in a number of municipalities where borrowing bylaws were passed and loans and debentures issued without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board before the bylaws in question received third reading. To accomplish this, the bill proposes to validate all of these bylaws, loans and debentures except for four specific loans relating to individual properties in the township of Malden, where the persons who acquired these properties after the loans were issued did not receive proper notice of the existence of the loans.

I would like to take a moment to describe in somewhat more detail the various provisions of the bill. Sections 1 to 6 are intended to strengthen the administration of the act and to prevent similar problems from occurring in the future.

Section 1 proposes to remove the stipulations in the act that no loans to a property owner for the construction of shoreline works may exceed 90 per cent of the total cost or a maximum amount set out in the regulations, whichever is less. Section 5 proposes to do the same thing with respect to loans for eligible building repairs. In future, the maximum limit of such loans will be set by regulation.

Section 2(1) and section 7 will provide greater flexibility in the term of the debenture issued by the municipality to the province. Instead of being fixed at 20 years, in future the term will be set by regulation.

Section 2(2) will require the municipality to submit to the province, along with the debenture and an offer to sell, a certificate showing that the shoreline work has been completed and showing the value of such work. This will enable our ministry to make certain that the work falls within the terms of the act, that the loan amounts do not exceed the permitted maximum and that the works have been completed satisfactorily.

Section 3 of the bill is complementary to section 2(1) and simply seeks to ensure that the term of a loan from a municipality to a property owner will be the same length as the term of the debenture. Section 4(1) is also complementary and proposes to require that the annual special rate on the land of an owner who has borrowed money from a municipality must be sufficient to discharge the total loan, with interest, within the term of the loan.

Section 4(2) will require a municipality in future to register in the proper land registry office the bylaw by which it imposes a special annual rate on a property. The purpose of this new provision is to ensure that individuals who buy affected properties are made fully aware of shoreline loans at the time of purchase. At present, there is no such requirement for registration of the rating bylaw, although the act does require a municipality to register a copy of its bylaw authorizing it to borrow money from the province.

I will be introducing a motion in committee to withdraw sections 4(3) and 4(4) from the bill. These two provisions were originally inserted to protect the interests of an individual who purchased an affected property after the passing of a rating bylaw but prior to the registration of the bylaw by the municipality. We now believe this to be unnecessary in the light of the new administrative procedures that have been adopted by our ministry.

In future, the province will not purchase a debenture from a municipality under this act unless all relevant rating bylaws required to recover the total amount of the debenture have been registered. This practice will eliminate the type of problem envisioned by the two sections that are being withdrawn.

4:20 p.m.

Sections 7 and 9 deal specifically with the existing problems in a number of municipalities, to which I referred earlier.

Section 7(1) deals with the failure to obtain prior OMB approval of building bylaws by validating all bylaws passed, all debentures issued, loans made and rates imposed under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

However, to take account of the special circumstances and problems that existed in the township of Malden, section 7(2) declares the special rates imposed on four properties in Malden to be invalid. This is being done partly because one of these properties has been to court and the courts have already declared such laws to be invalid. I am planning to introduce a motion in committee towards a subsection to offer additional protection to the owners of these properties. The land to be exempted is described in a schedule which is contained in section 9 of the bill.

Section 7(3) provides that the township of Malden will remain responsible for repaying the money borrowed from the province in respect of the four exempted properties. Malden has had an unfortunate history of problems over the past several years which a new administration is now solving.

Finally, because of the deletion of sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the bill, section 8 will be unnecessary and I will be introducing a motion in committee to withdraw it.

It is essential that this bill be enacted so this very valuable shoreline property assistance program can he protected and improved, and I would ask for the support of all members of this assembly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill in principle. It certainly will be of some benefit as there are changes that are required because of changes in activities since the act was brought in in 1973.

I know my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is particularly interested in the Malden matter and will speak to it. Other colleagues of mine as well have particular interests as they represent areas along the lakeshore in southwestern Ontario that have had some difficulty over the past.

There are some questions I would ask the parliamentary assistant to reply to as second reading of the bill is completed. I am interested in the comment that the 90 per cent term and the 20-year term are being removed and that both of these are going to see replacement in regulation. Is it the intention by regulation that a higher rate than 90 per cent or a longer term than 20 years might be expected in some of these circumstances or, in effect, is that still going to he the maximum against which the various amounts and lengths of time are to be measured?

As well, the limit by regulation of 90 per cent comes to mind when I wonder whether 100 per cent of the figure has been ever given in the past or what was the intention behind 90 per cent in the first place.

The other sections of the bill are all supplementary to these particular principles and they have our support.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the bill. The bill obviously deals with the number of concerns and problems that have evolved out there. I must say I am happy to see the government for a change taking the time to deal with a number of those specific problems in the bill, as opposed to correcting the overall legislative problems without dealing with the specific problems the bad legislation has caused. That has happened a number of times in the past.

I also have a couple of questions of the parliamentary assistant, and they relate to the regulations that will be set. I would like to know, for example, how the government will determine by regulation the length of a loan to the municipality for the purposes of lending to an individual; how the term of the loan to the individual will be set that will ultimately set the rate of payment back to the municipality by the individual property owner; and what kind of a level they envision setting the maximum at. My understanding is that the maximum would be 90 per cent, as it was in the past, up to a set maximum by regulation.

I am just wondering, first of all, at what level they envision setting that maximum and whether that will affect or restrict moneys for these kinds of works that perhaps have gone out at higher amounts in the past.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the second reading debate concerning Bill 139. As has already been mentioned, I have some specific concerns about the bill because it deals specifically with one of the municipalities I represent, and I will be making comments about that a little later on.

I would like to bring several things to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. The first is that we are certainly pleased that we are going to have some flexibility within the 20-year term of repayment. I have come across numerous constituents who have wanted to repay the loan in a shorter time.

You may know, Mr. Speaker, that all of my riding fronts along the waterfront. Some of it fronts along the Detroit River, but the majority part of it is along Lake Erie; so legislation such as this is very vital to my riding. We certainly support the flexibility of the 20-year repayment period, and these arrangements can be worked out between the municipality and the individual.

Section 2(2)(8) on page one tries to correct some of the problems that I have encountered in my own riding. For example, we do know that engineers are paid a fee to inspect the work and to make sure it is done properly. However, I have sometimes found that, although the work may have been inspected, it was possibly not thoroughly inspected. The home owner is left with the breakwater or with some waterfront work that does not even last a year before the work starts to crumble.

I have had several specific examples of that and, try as I might, I have been unable to get anyone to take responsibility for the work. The engineer says, “On the day that I inspected the work, the work was fine.” The municipality says, “We just lend the money.” The province of Ontario says, “We just lend the money to the municipality.”

Therefore, the constituent or the citizen in the province who has had the work done has no recourse, save the fact that he may wish to take the engineer and the construction firm that did the work to court. Of course, that involves quite a bit of money. It involves time off from the individual’s job and is not a practical way of dealing with the problem.

If I understand section 2(2)(8) properly -- and I hope the parliamentary assistant can deal with this in his reply -- it says: “. . . a copy of the inspection and completion certificate mentioned in subsection 1 certified by the clerk with whom it was filed shall accompany the debenture delivered to the Treasurer of Ontario.”

I want to make sure that someone along the line takes responsibility for the work done and, within a period of one year or whatever time frame the parliamentary assistant thinks reasonable, if the work is shown to be faulty, that the citizen who has borrowed the money and who must repay the money has a course of action to take to get the work properly fixed. That is a very important concern that I have, and I wish the parliamentary assistant would deal with it in his response.

4:30 p.m.

Second, I am very concerned about the section in the bill that is going to put a limit on the maximum amount of money, to be borrowed. The parliamentary assistant may not be aware that in my riding there is an ethnic club which has its base in Windsor but, because of the cost of land et cetera in the city, they have decided to buy a park in Essex county to hold many of their events. The park they have bought fronts on Lake Erie. They have bought quite a large parcel of land, and they have owned this land for some time.

I know they are having erosion problems, and they are approaching the municipality in which the land is situated to borrow the money under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act to have this fixed up. If the government imposes a limit on that, they are in no position to get all the work done that is necessary. Thus the intent of the program, which is to ensure that all the erosion along the shoreline is adequately fixed, will not be met.

It is not just individual home owners who have this problem. If clubs such as the Caboto Club of Windsor wish to have parkland in the county to hold very legitimate functions on behalf of their members, we must also take into account their considerations and concerns. I hope we are going to get an answer on that.

I would also like to mention section 4(2). Under this, the government is now requiring, as a matter of law, that all the municipalities must register the amounts of money borrowed. I assume this is so that if the property is sold the lawyers acting for the buyers can then inform their clients there is a lien against the property. The buyer being aware that there may be some encumbrances on the property, this is one of the things he has to negotiate with the person who is selling it. That is the part where I have some concern about the province’s role as far as the retroactivity of this legislation is concerned.

The problem in the township of Malden is that, for reasons known only to the individuals involved, when these loans were made the administration of the municipality did not properly register the amounts of money borrowed. Therefore, when the properties were sold -- specifically the four outlined in the schedule of the bill -- the new owners of the property were unaware of the encumbrances. Once the properties had been purchased and they had settled into their new homes, they received bills from the municipality telling them they owed this money.

That is fine. I am glad these people are going to be relieved of that payment. It is only far that this be in the bill. An unsuspecting person who buys a home and has a lawyer check the matter out and finds no encumbrances should not be penalized or have to pay the money back.

But I do say the province does have some responsibility to assist the municipality, specifically Malden in this bill. If the province had no say in the matter before, they certainly feel they should have had a say; that is why they are introducing section 4(2), which makes it mandatory for the administration of the municipality to have that matter registered.

The province should give consideration to assisting the township of Malden. It says very explicitly in the bill that the township of Malden is not relieved of any of its obligation. That basically means they have to repay whatever they have borrowed from the province to lend to individual home owners. Because of mistakes made by the administration, which has since been removed, they have no opportunity whatsoever to recoup that money. Because of that, I believe Ontario does have some obligation to the township of Malden.

Basically, that underlines my concern. I will be making further comments in the clause-by-clause debate.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions I would like to raise, because I am unclear as to the scope of coverage here. My riding of Scarborough West has a major portion of the Scarborough Bluffs in it. The approach that has been taken over the last couple of years in terms of preventive work to stop the erosion of the bluffs has been done through the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. In the last few years we have been successful in doing a major endikement or berm kind of construction at the foot of a couple of the streets below the bluffs.

This summer there was an attempt to get the agreement of all property owners in the next area along the bluffs to participate in the program and to cede their title for land, which I understand goes well out into the lake at this point, to the conservation authority so they could further complete the endikement process they are up to. Unfortunately, a few of the property owners felt they could not in all honesty do it because the amount of property that would be taken, I gather partly because of the severity of the slope at that point, would be as much as 100 or so feet. They felt they were giving up too much, whereas others were only having to give up about 30 feet along the shore. As a result, we did not get as much done this summer in terms of preventive work as we hoped we would accomplish.

I am wondering how this kind of act, allowing for particular individuals to get compensation through the municipality et cetera for work they might do, might be incorporated with what the conservation authority is trying to do. If we have 50 home owners who have agreed to the conservation authority work and are willing to cede their properties and if we have two who are not, whose properties are in the middle of that, would it be possible to make arrangements through the municipality -- I am not sure if Scarborough or Metro would be involved -- to provide the assistance to have it done through this program to fill those gaps? Or are we going to have to wait and hope that at some point or other that owner is going to go along with the plans of the conservation authority?

I would like some assistance with that, because major efforts we have made over the last couple of years now look like they are being stopped as a result of this inability to get unanimous accord from all the home owners. I am interested to know whether there is any way we can use this vehicle, once it is passed.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some general comments on the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. Only yesterday morning I met in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk with the regional mayors of the six municipalities in regard to shoreline protection. Over the years we have had two programs for shoreline protection. One is through this particular bill, which provides 100 per cent of a loan at eight per cent with its being repaid to the municipality. The other is an 80 per cent grant to the municipality if it affects roads; the municipality picks up 20 per cent of the funding. Consequently, we have argued and discussed with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) that this same program perhaps should be made available to home owners where conditions warrant.

I realize we cannot protect all the shores of our Great Lakes, as that would be impossible, but there are some specific areas that are problems and warrant the expense and should be protected. The jobs are too big to be protected by the individual. The work is done on a piecemeal basis. The home owners can borrow through the municipality but the work can be washed away because it has not been done properly. Consequently, the municipality is left with that expense.

I know the minister was there. I hope his people will take another look at it to see whether something can be worked out down the road to give more assistance where these conditions warrant.

4:40 p.m.

Let me give an example. At Port Dover there is a residential area something similar to that adjacent to the Scarborough Bluffs in the riding of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). There is a steep bank eroding away the real estate, which is valuable property. It is only with the assistance of the municipality or the region that a long-term plan can be put in effectively. Again, I hope that will be given some consideration. I realize it is not going to be done through this bill.

My other area of concern is an area between Long Point and Port Stanley where there are steep banks and good agricultural land. It is eroding at the rate of several metres a year. Once it gets to the road right of way, perhaps the ministry will step in with assistance under the 80-20 plan and something may be done.

For example, this past year there was one farmer who owned 100 acres. To protect his property, he spent $15,000 putting gabions parallel to the shore and spaced at intervals of a couple of hundred feet. He has accepted that total expense to protect his farm land. He was able to get assistance of $1,500 through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s capital projects program. I think that was all the assistance that was available there. Again, the magnitude of the job outweighed what the individual was able to finance. There have to be some adjustments to our program to give better assistance to deal with these individual problems.

It also came out that only $825,000 had been spent in this shoreline assistance program over the past five years. That is a trivial amount of money but, with the necessity for the program to save and protect our agricultural land and our real estate, we may have to reassess it and approach it in a different manner where the problem warrants. The approach should be one where the municipality has input and makes a request along that line. We have to have input from the local level to justify the expenditure. That is an area that needs some attention.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to Bill 139, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973, and raise a couple of issues that I think the parliamentary assistant should he looking at.

I do not know whether he is aware of the recent planning that has taken place in the Niagara region as it relates to shoreline property. We now have what is considered hazardous land. There are certain restrictions that apply to persons who own property along the shoreline. When I look at section 5 of the act, I have to say there is conflicting legislation.

To put it in perspective -- and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can follow what I am trying to convey to him -- I have received a letter from a constituent of mine. It says:

“Enclosed find a copy of a letter of protest sent to the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. We are writing this appeal to you, our elected representative to the Ontario government, to appeal the proposed zoning bylaw 1-DU8O as brought forth by the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. In particular, article 6.3.2, which clearly discriminated against certain waterfront owners we find repugnant.”

The letter is addressed to the clerk of the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. It says: “Dear Mrs. Johnston: This is to notify you of our objection to clause 6.3.2. -- Replacement of Non-Conforming Uses, found in section 16: General Provisions. In particular the second part of clause 8.3.2. which states:

“This provision shall not apply to permit the replacement or repair of a building or structure in an [hazardous land] zone which has been damaged or destroyed to such an extent that substantial replacement of the building or structure would be required to restore the building or structure for use, we find most objectionable and we protest that this is an infringement on our rights as citizens, taxpayers and land owners. To state that an individual does not have the right to rebuild or repair a dwelling owned by him if it is damaged or destroyed goes beyond the powers of the Haldimand-Norfolk region or any governmental body.”

The same clause could be found in the Niagara regional planning guidelines set out for hazardous lands in the township of Wainfleet. The explanatory note for section 5 of the bill reads: “Section 13 of the act makes part I of the act applicable to the repairing of a building or structure damaged by high water levels, or certain other specific causes. The section stipulates that no loan to a property owner may exceed 90 per cent of the cost of the repair or the maximum amount set out in the regulations under the act, whichever is less. The amendment will provide that no such loan may exceed the maximum amount set out in the regulations.” As I understand that, there may be some flexibility in this particular area.

May I draw to the minister’s attention the two conflicting pieces of legislation? One area of the region says you cannot rebuild a damaged cottage along a lakeshore that is defined as hazardous land, and yet we have an act that says we will provide loans to assist in the rebuilding of such a structure. I ask the parliamentary assistant, which law should a property owner abide by?

There is another area I want to bring to the minister’s attention. In my riding I have quite a bit of shoreline; it covers the Niagara River, the town of Fort Erie, the city of Port Colborne and the township of Wainfleet. I believe it was in 1973 that my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) put through a resolution, which was accepted by the House, to have a discussion on the high water levels in the Great Lakes basin, particularly in Lake Erie. I know the damage that is caused, particularly because over the weekend we had another severe storm in our area; it no doubt has caused considerable shoreline erosion and damage to some of the properties along there.

I think the region is right in bringing to the attention of anybody who lives there or is purchasing property along the lakeshore that it is hazardous land. Under the Niagara regional plan, you must have a particular setback on your land to construct a building. In other words, unlike a few years ago, you cannot build the house right out on the shoreline overlooking the lake where you have the problems of wind and water erosion.

My point is that I noticed in my area that the type of retaining walls put in are not suitable. They are not permanent, because in some cases the force of the water will move the retaining wall. In some places they are dumping large boulders along the lakeshore. I do not think that will solve the problem of soil erosion there, because the force of the wind and the heavy waters that batter the retaining wall will cause the water to shoot above these large boulders, further eroding the sand and shoreline; as a result, these large boulders will shift out towards the lake.

I suggest that there should be a regulation requiring that the retaining wall must be of a suitable nature and will not shift over the years. I think the boulders do serve a purpose, but they should be staggered or stacked in tiers that will provide a suitable breakwall. In some cases, they should be designed similar to a snowplough; that is, the top comes out instead of being recessed so it will throw the water back. I suggest there is a problem in the suitable type of retaining walls required.

4:50 p.m.

The other point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister concerns some property owners who do not have title to the shoreline where these retaining walls are being built. The decision of Mr. Justice Stark, relating to the ownership of shoreline property in Erie riding in 1975, said that any property owner who owned land abutting the lakeshore, if he maintained that shoreline, he would have control of it, or it would be deemed to be his land. There are problems with this particular area now where we find property owners putting out large boulders that are not there necessarily to protect the shoreline but to protect their right, if we wish to call it that, to the waters of Lake Erie. This is depriving many citizens in the area of their right to the shoreline.

I suggest it is an area the minister should be looking at, because I can see there are going to be further problems there. I can see there are still going to be battles of the beaches in my area in preserving the lakeshore for its citizens too, without it going to one or two individuals who can block off half a mile of sandy beach, and say it belongs to them. One cannot even land a boat along that shoreline without having someone call some law enforcement agency to tell that person to remove that boat from the shoreline.

As it is an area that is of concern to me, if the government is going to get involved in it and pay some of the costs for protection of the shoreline, then I suggest that it must become public lands and not be for private individuals. I have problems on my land in Sherkston. For example, if I want to get rid of the water on my land, I have to pay for that. I suggest there is a common-law principle involved here, and that is what I am trying to convey to the minister. He should be watching and moving with some caution in this particular area. Suitable retaining walls should be put up, provided they are put on lands people own and not on public beaches or land belonging to the crown.

I would like to have the parliamentary assistant’s opinion on the conflicting legislation as to whether it relates to municipal legislation or provincial legislation. For example, do they have a right to rebuild if a cottage is destroyed?

Mr. Ruston: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on the amendment to the Shoreline Property Assistance Act with regard to removing the 90 per cent of the cost of building the shoreline protection. The amount will be now set by regulations. Can the minister give us any idea what criteria they will use in figuring what the amount should be? Will it be the size of the lot or whatever the case might be? I wonder if he has anything that he might be able to say in reply with regard to that matter.

With regard to high water, I have had calls from some people who live along the lake who have individual opinions as to why they think the lake levels have stayed up over the period of the last few years. They did go down somewhat on Lake St. Clair, which I am involved in because of the total length of my riding, and on the Detroit River. Now the level has come back up to almost the height it was in 1973, or within a few inches. They claim it is because no dredging was done on the channels in Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River, especially in Lake St. Clair, which we all know is a very shallow lake and the channels have to be dredged to get much more over 20 feet in depth in the main part.

They are of the opinion that this lake level is being controlled so that ships can carry a heavier load because with the higher water they will not be hitting bottom in areas where it has not been dredged. It has not been dredged because of the mercury that got into the lake in the late 1960s. We do not know how long ago really, but it was discovered in 1970 or around that time. They are afraid to dredge because of the pollution and because bringing that material up may cause more problems. In other words, they would rather have it sitting down on the bottom of the river where no one is getting any effect from it. That is a matter of concern that some people have.

An improvement in the bill is that the bylaw must be registered at the registry office and, to make sure that is done, proof must be given of that before the loan is given -- I certainly agree with that principle -- so everyone knows when purchasing or selling property if there are any loans against it.

There is nothing else I can think of right now that should be said on the bill, but I wonder whether the minister might be able to give us any idea of how he will designate the amount of funds that will be used in each particular case.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, as a member representing a riding that is on the lakeshore, I have a concern that I simply want to express at this time. That involves the practice used mostly by cottage owners that has been quite successful, which is putting groynes out into the lake. A groyne is a steel or wooden wall; in recent years they have been going to steel. They put this wall out into the lake, I would say 60 to 80 feet, perhaps even 100 feet; it traps the gravel and creates a beach. By having a beach they have really taken the same engineering feature that the people in Holland have been so successful at in reclaiming land from the sea. It provides a slope for the waves to dissipate themselves against as they go up that slope rather than pounding into a vertical wall and eventually pounding that wall down.

I am speaking mainly about residential properties, because there are many areas along the lake where there are summer homes and permanent homes. These people have been quite successful in this effort. But that kind of success really depends upon a group of people joining together and making a continuous project out of this so there is no gap. On occasion, some person in the centre of one of these sections may say: “I am satisfied to allow the erosion to go on. I don’t wish to contribute.” Therefore, they do not contribute, but they automatically benefit from the work that is done by the other people.

The thought has been in my mind for some time that perhaps we should be thinking of legislation along the lines of the Drainage Act whereby, if a certain percentage of the affected people agree through a vote to go for protection, the other people would be compelled to put up the money or it would be charged against them through their taxes.

There is another feature of this work to which I do not know the answer either, and that is when we come to the last person in line where these groynes are put; the action of the sea is to dig in behind those people, with the result that they are adversely affected by the operation. Somehow or other their interests must be taken into consideration. Whether a sort of diminishing distance in the groynes would protect them, or whatever engineering could be done, I have no idea. However, it is a problem, and I point it out, to simply mention at this time that we should be giving some consideration to such legislation.

5 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on one brief point with regard to this bill; it is in a sense a little of a lament about something that has not been included, but I want to tie it into the funding changes that are included in the bill.

One of the serious problems which arises in major parts of my riding that border on the south shore of Lake Ontario is that the erosion control measures put in place under the act do not survive the lifetime of the repayment schedule that is set up. Hence people, for example, on Cherry Beach in Stoney Creek or on Fifty Point in Stoney Creek, although that problem is now being dealt with in other ways, are paying still under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. Yet currently they are receiving no shoreline property assistance, because what was put in place some seven or eight years ago has been washed away by the tremendous force of Lake Ontario.

Having moved to Stoney Creek and living by the lake, as I now do, it is just incredible to go out on a winter’s day when there is a heavy storm, or sometimes at night, to watch the force of those waves. The power of water is mightier than any of us, and it is easily capable of moving any of the works that have been put in place along that shoreline in the last 10 years. Even some of the more current works are in some serious danger of being moved out by the water because of the lack of continuous shoreline protection.

I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the minister, might be able to respond to that problem and indicate whether the funding that is proposed under this bill might not be amended in some way so that people are not stuck with a fairly heavy repayment schedule that was imposed upon them by the municipality -- even though they participated in some way in the decision for shoreline protection that is long gone and is providing them with absolutely no shoreline protection at all.

I think that is a very important point because, unlike most local improvements, shoreline protection comes with no guarantee or commitment that it is going to last. Yet for these people, the payments seem interminable, and I hope the government is able, through an amendment to this bill, somehow to deal with that very serious problem.

Other than that, I fully concur with the comments that have been made by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and look forward to supporting these necessary changes to the legislation.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members who spoke on this bill for their support and for their very relevant questions.

I would like to preface my remarks by indicating that this is not a bill to solve all the shoreline problems on the various lakes within our province. This is a bill to handle a very specific problem, and that problem is really to assist a home owner or a property owner in financing work that he undertakes on his own.

A number of other questions were raised and I will try to deal with them individually. But let us understand, this is not a bill to solve all the shoreline property problems. This is a bill simply, as it was envisioned in 1974, to assist home owners, through their municipality, in being able to finance work which they would normally undertake on their own.

We have to understand that the role of the province in this case is the role of a banker, and that is all the act was set up for. It does assist, and this is what we tried to do in 1973, but basically the role of the province is as banker to the municipalities to help their individual property owners. There are other acts, through conservation authorities and so on, to deal with public properties and other situations. Keeping that in mind, I would like to try to answer all the specific questions that have been raised.

As far as the 90 per cent is concerned, that figure is not mandatory at present. Section 3(8) of the act indicates, “No loan for the construction of works shall exceed 90 per cent of the total cost of the works or a maximum amount prescribed by the regulations.” What it says at present is 90 per cent or by regulation. We are simply suggesting that we take out “90 per cent.” For clarity, I would point out that there are two regulations now which restrict that 90 per cent. One says, in effect, a maximum of $150 per foot of shoreline or 90 per cent, whichever is the lesser, and the other says a maximum of $20,000 or 90 per cent, whichever is the lesser. The 90 per cent is somewhat qualified at the moment.

We have no intention at the moment of changing the 90 per cent, but I would point out that 90 per cent is the maximum. It is up to the municipality whether it wishes to lend 90 per cent or some lesser amount. We again act as the backup banker to the municipality. It is not a fixed 90 per cent; it is a maximum of 90 per cent. As I say, we have no intention of changing that at the moment.

As far as the term is concerned, the term of 20 years is fixed. We feel there should be some flexibility in term, both from our point of view and from the municipality’s point of view. This may, if I can start at the bottom, answer the question of the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), if he will listen for a moment, because he complained about the fact that people were paying beyond the term of the life of the improvement. It would be available to the government to prescribe that all loans will be something less than 20 years or, quite probably, that a municipality in issuing a debenture may wish for whatever reason to issue a five-, 10- or 15-year debenture. We are taking out the maximum of 20 years and putting in the flexibility, not only for ourselves but also for the municipalities which, for valid reasons between themselves and the property owner or owners for whom the debenture is being issued, may wish a repayment term of less than 20 years. We feel that flexibility should be there.

I would point out in this program, by the way, we have been lending about $550,000 to $800,000 per year over the past number of years; so there is about $4 million now in the program. One of the possible reasons we may want to reduce the maximum, though not at this stage, is that there is a great demand on this money. We may want to spread it out a little more and maybe reduce the maximum but, as I say, that is not a proposal at present.

The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) raised a number of valid points. I would point out to him that section 4(2), dealing with the mandatory registration on title, is not retroactive. This is only for all future debenturing. It must be registered on title. The ones that are now in force would of course be validated.

He also quite properly raised the matter of the four specific problems in Malden. I must say I have some sympathy for him, because in effect the taxpayers of the township are left holding the bag for mistakes of past administrations. I would point out that the court case involved did not revolve around the registration, but the bylaw for one of those four properties was declared invalid because the procedures were not proper during the course.

We are declaring other bylaws valid for all the other properties in the province besides those four and to be in the same category of retroactive legislation because the original property owners are still there and they signed the agreement. We were not taking rights away from any person, but these four were not parties to the agreement and the legislation was not handled properly.

As I said, I have some sympathy for the member for Essex South in asking for assistance for the municipality, but it is very difficult to say we are going to help a municipality because someone made a mistake. If we did that every time someone made a mistake, we do not know where it would end. I have not been able to find a way of doing this, even though I do say we do have sympathy for it.

The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) raised an interesting point about the problem of some property owners being involved and some not, I would point out that Scarborough does participate in this program but, as I said, this is a program for a specific purpose, namely, for the province to act as bankers to the municipalities to act in turn as bankers to the citizens. This is a voluntary program in this particular act. Although there may be a number of property owners who want to participate and some who do not, there is no compulsion under this act to force a person to do the work. There are other situations through conservation authorities or some ministry or some other legislation by which people possibly can he forced to do work where a majority of property owners want it.

5:10 p.m.

The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) raised the problem of local improvement where, if a number of property owners do not want to do it, they should all be compelled. That is an interesting idea, and I think it should be looked at. Both members have raised it. There are problems in areas of shoreline where, if some do and some do not, the value will be lost; but that is not under this specific act, and we will look at that for some other act.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) also raised the matter of grants. This is not a grant in any way. It is only a grant in the form that they get a lesser rate of interest. Grants for major problems are something we will look into as a different proposition.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) pointed out a problem in that he feels there is an apparent conflict of legislation where the municipality says you cannot rebuild and this act says you may rebuild. What this act says is that, when a person has the permission to rebuild, we will assist by lending him money -- but before this act can kick in and come into force, the person must get a valid building permit from his municipality.

If a zoning bylaw prohibits the rebuilding of a property, if something is a legal nonconformity use and is totally destroyed, then the legal nonconformity does not carry over.

If the zoning bylaw of a municipality forbids the rebuilding of a property, then of course the person cannot get a building permit. As I say, this act comes into force only when a person has a legal building permit and can proceed with the work. The simple answer to the question is that the zoning bylaws of a municipality supersede this act. This act does not invalidate a zoning bylaw.

The member for Erie also mentioned some problems about retaining walls and protection outside the boundaries of a property. Again, I would point out the limitation under this act. This is only for work being done on private property where the municipality is satisfied the work is being done on the property and the debenture or the loan can be registered on title against that property. The problem of private ownership versus public ownership, the problem of whether it is a public beach or a private beach, the problem of whether someone wants to build something on public land to protect the private land, is basically not covered by this legislation, nor should it be.

When a municipality comes to us and certifies the work is being done on private property and the property owners agree to be responsible for it, then we will lend the money. These other problems are valid, but they really do not come under this act.

I think I have dealt with the problem of the member for Kent-Elgin. Under this act, we cannot compel some people to do it and other people not to do it. Under certain circumstances, possibly under a different act under the Ministry of Natural Resources and not this ministry, where work has to be done to protect everybody and has been deemed to do so, perhaps there should be some way of compelling people, but under this act it is voluntary.

I dealt with part of the problem of the member for Wentworth. He complained about the fact that someone may still be paying off his debenture when the work is no longer there. That is similar to someone buying a car on time; even if the car is obsolete, he still owes the money. The point is that a person is borrowing money for a specific purpose, but he is borrowing money, signing his name and assigning his property to it. As I indicated earlier, one of the reasons we think there should be a shorter term on debenture is to cover this point.

Mr. Isaacs: You sound like a used car salesman.

Mr. Rotenberg: Heaven forbid! I have enough problems already.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have answered all the questions that were raised by the members opposite. Again, I thank them for their support. If the bill receives second reading, I would like it to be referred to the committee of the whole House since I do have three amendments which I have indicated will be forthcoming.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant went over most of the comments and points brought up by other members. However, I was not too clear on the explanation concerning section 5(8) as set out in section 2(2).

We realize the act requests that a copy of the inspection and completion certificate be delivered to the Treasurer. But, as I pointed out earlier, does that make anyone in particular responsible for any shoddy workmanship that might be done?

I mentioned to the parliamentary assistant a specific case that came up in my riding where a constituent had work done and the engineer completed the inspection and completion certificate, but the workmanship did not even last a year before the breakwater started to fall back into the lake. The engineer said he was not responsible because on the day he inspected it the work seemed to be done in a proper manner. The engineer was not there when the work was being constructed; so he could not really say whether the work had been done properly, but he did sign a certificate.

That is going to cause a real problem. The municipality says it is not responsible; it just lends the money. The parliamentary assistant says the province is not responsible; it just lends the money to the municipality. Someone has to protect the person who is borrowing the money, and the inspection and completion certificate is really not an inspection certificate. There is really no one protecting the person borrowing the money.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member for Essex South, because I did not answer that question in my reply. I should have done that, and I am glad he has raised it here.

It is not an easy answer. Remember that the basic contract for the work that is being done is between the property owner and the contractor. On any other kind of work done on a home or a driveway, if the work is improper, then the homeowner has a right under the contract to sue the contractor for improper workmanship. No matter what work is done, whether it is building a house, putting in a driveway or a basement or building an addition, the professional person, whether he is an architect or an engineer, certifies the work has been done. That is the professional person referred to in section 2.

The honourable member is correct in that the municipality, which was the first banker -- where the province was the backup banker -- guarantees the work. In this case, I do not think it should. It is a similar situation to when one goes to a bank or a mortgage company to borrow money for an addition to a home. You sign your name and the bank lends you the money. The bank is in no way responsible for the quality of the workmanship.

Under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, there are a number of acts that protect home owners and pertain to quality workmanship and so on. With respect, beyond issuing a certificate that the work has been completed and the cost of work is proper, I do not see how any municipality or government can guarantee that work. It is up to the home owner to get his guarantee from the contractor. If the work has been done improperly, certainly there is recourse in the courts for the property owner.

This may not be the answer the honourable member is looking for but, frankly, I cannot see any way in which either the municipal or the provincial government can be involved in guaranteeing the quality of the workmanship. The government can get involved to an extent, but it does not lend the money until the work has been done and certified by a professional. I think that is as far as I can go.

Mr. Mancini: This matter is a little different from the way the parliamentary assistant described it, because this legislation says the individual home owner must have the work inspected and a certified engineer must sign this inspection and completion certificate.

The bill I saw was for nearly $500. It had to be paid by the home owner. We are asking the home owner to pay a large sum of money to certify that the work has been inspected and completed. If we are asking the home owner to do that, and making him pay that type of fee, then we do have an obligation to him to offer some protection.

Secondly, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, who appoints the engineer who provides the inspection and completion certificate? Is it the province? Is it the municipality? Or is it the individual home owner?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will answer the member’s second question first. It is my understanding that the person who provides the inspection certificate is appointed by the municipality.

Secondly, I think the comparison I used earlier is valid; if you go to your bank or mortgage company and borrow money, they require you to give them a certificate of completion. If you take money out on your home mortgage and you get it on draws or one lump sum, you are required to supply and pay for a certificate.

I say again, with respect, this act is putting the province in the position of assisting home owners to borrow money at a low rate of interest to do these works. In this case we make sure the work is certified by a qualified engineer before we pay the money, as any banker would do. Beyond that, we cannot assume any further responsibility.

Mr. Mancini: If I understand the parliamentary assistant correctly, he has told the House that the municipality appoints the engineer who fills out the inspection and completion certificate. If that is the case, we should change it.

If the home owner is going to be subjected to the whim of the municipality, no matter how well the municipality operates, and if he is going to be subjected to paying $500 without even having the right to appoint the engineer, then I think we are putting him in a very untenable position.

If I, as a home owner, have the right to hire my own engineer, then I know he has an obligation to me personally, and he is being paid under a contract we have made together. But if we insert a middleman, that makes the problem even worse, because the home owner has to go to the municipality and then the municipality has to go to the engineer. The engineer says: “I am filing this out for the municipality. I really have no obligation to the home owner.”

We are paying people to do the work of inspection and we are not getting that work done. All the engineer does after he has been called by the municipality is go there and say, “Oh, yes, we have 80 feet of work done here.” He looks at the contractor’s specs, which say it is to be 80 feet long and three feet high. He says, “Oh, yes, it looks as if that has been done.” He signs the certificate.

I say to the parliamentary assistant it gives the individual home owner the opinion that he is being protected when, in fact, be is not being protected. If we are not prepared to do that, then we should give the individual home owner the chance to hire the engineer on his own. I am sure he can get that large fee reduced and he will probably have a better inspection job.

Mr. Rotenberg: I will say to the member that I am getting messages to clarify this point for him.

When the inspector is hired by the municipality, basically his job is to ensure the work that has been done is the work that was applied for in the original application to the municipality; that the work has been completed; and that the cost of work does not exceed the maximums that are here.

Mr. Mancini: We need to pay someone $500 for that?

Mr. Rotenberg: Just a minute. That is what the inspector’s certificate does. I am informed that a few municipalities do not use a professional engineer for this part of the inspection; it is a municipal building inspector, a road superintendent and so on.

Over and above that, if I were having some work done on my property, I would hire my own professional engineer to make sure it was done properly, to certify and so on. That would be part of the contract.

I am informed by our branch which handles fees for inspection that it normally costs in the range of $25 to $50 to certify, as he indicated, that the work done is in accordance with the estimates. A much steeper bill was given to a home owner by the municipality. I think that bill should be questioned, because that is not what is contemplated in the act, as I now understand it. A $500 or $600 bill would go beyond what the act contemplates as being certified and inspected by the municipality at the home owner’s cost. If the municipality recently stuck somebody for a bill that was not necessary, it should be questioned.

Mr. Mancini: I would just like to say to the parliamentary assistant that this problem has occurred. I have had a home owner who has had this exact same problem. We have gone through the system. The engineer said he completed the form as was prescribed and the municipality said its obligation was only to lend the money. Now we find we have the bill before us and we are losing an opportunity of protecting individual home owners. If the parliamentary assistant thinks the fee should be $50, maybe in his regulations he can work something out to that end. I leave that to the parliamentary assistant. Let us not lose this opportunity we have to protect the home owners who have no defence at all.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to inform the member that we will look into the specific or general problem he has indicated. If something is being abused, yes, I think we should look at a new regulation to correct that abuse. I thank him for drawing it to our attention.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsections 3 and 4 of section 8, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 2 of section 7 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Notwithstanding subsection 1, the special rates imposed under section 8 or 13 of the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973, on the lands described in the schedule hereto are hereby declared to be and to have always been invalid and do not constitute a charge or lien on the lands and that the moneys borrowed by the owner thereof under the provisions of the said act are hereby deemed not to be or have been a debt upon which special rates may have been or may be imposed, assessed or levied against such lands or any interest therein.”

Mr. Rotenberg: As I explained in my opening speech, Mr. Chairman, this simply clarifies the law about the intent of that section.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 8 of the bill be struck out and the sections following be renumbered.

Sections 8, 9 and 10, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 139, as amended, reported.

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

5:30 p.m.

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 170, An Act to erect the Township of Gloucester into a City Municipality.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill will erect the present township of Gloucester to city status on January 1, 1981. It has been brought forward in response to requests from the township council and reflects the fact that Gloucester is now extensively urbanized with a population of almost 70,000. The neighbouring township of Nepean, with a slightly larger population, became a city in 1978 for similar reasons.

The proposed legislation does not affect the November 1980 municipal election process. The council elected in November will consist of a reeve and six councillors. After January 1, 1981, these positions will become a mayor and six aldermen. Gloucester’s representation on regional council is provided for in section 4(1)(d) of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act as amended last June. This also would not be affected by the legislation.

With a change to city status in 1981, Gloucester will be subject to the grant entitlement of a city rather than a township. This now affects only a few grants, such as for bridges and culverts, with the exception that the bill would continue the township rate of grant for an already committed bridge project, the Orleans Boulevard overpass.

The proposed legislation will also continue current speed limits applicable to a township until altered by a bylaw of the city council or the regional council with respect to speed limits on regional roads. The above specific provisions have been requested by and agreed to by the township council.

I would ask that this bill be supported by the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill and to welcome to the people of the newly created city of Gloucester into the ranks of the cities in this province. Certainly, a population of 70,000 people is something that is much beyond the framework in which traditional townships have operated.

Over the years, the stage from township to village to separated town and then finally to city removed from the county structure was the pattern in which municipalities grew within Ontario. However, recent growth in many areas has required a move suddenly from the basic rural township to a larger city requirement as the result of subdivision growth around the cities that had existed within Ontario. Just as the township of Nepean was created into a city in 1978, so this other community in the Ottawa area, part of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, deserves this step forward.

We note there have been certain benefits of grants with respect to townships for some of these structures of bridges, culverts, et cetera, which were referred to and which will remain so as not to be a disadvantage with respect to city status. That certainly seems appropriate. The population there will have the benefit of that upgrading of various facilities which no doubt will be required and which the ordinary city has in place over the years as it develops to that status.

We in the official opposition welcome the creation of this new city in effect as of January 1, 1981.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise to support Bill 170. It is a move that was promised at the time we dealt with the Nepean bill. The government is taking this move in a very considered fashion. It is providing some additional benefits to an area that is now a township in terms of some construction that must still go on there.

I would like to pass on a couple of comments to the parliamentary assistant. I note in the bill that the council will be made up of aldermen elected at large until such time as wards are struck for the new city of Gloucester. I urge the minister and his ministry, through the parliamentary assistant, to exert as much pressure as possible on the new city of Gloucester to see that those wards are created as quickly as possible, because the local political structure in any major city in this province warrants it, both for the purpose of people’s ability to run for elected office and for constituents’ ability to deal with that representative who is most able to deal with their problems in their local area on the city council.

It is important that this at-large situation in terms of continuing elections in the new city of Gloucester not be allowed to carry on for very long. It is important that we get very quickly to a situation where the representation in that new city can be more appropriate and more accessible to the citizens of that new city.

Mr Roy: Mr. Speaker: I just want to make a few brief comments about the bill proposing to create the new city of Gloucester. I find somewhat ironic at times the paternalism of this government which has given things out to the good people out there in the outskirts, the suburbs and the hinterland in mouthfuls, one at a time.

I believe it was only last year, as my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) mentioned, that Nepean after all these years was finally made into a city, but we must not proceed too quickly because Gloucester has got only -- what is the population of Gloucester now? My colleague for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) will tell me.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is 70,000.

Mr. Roy: I find it ironic that what the government did for Nepean last year it could not have done in one shot for Gloucester, but the paternalistic attitude and approach by this government in handing things out in mouthfuls and spoonfuls and constrained portions ‘has to be continued. They have looked benevolently on Gloucester and said, “You may now become a city.” I always find that approach somewhat interesting on the part of this government.

We are in full support of this legislation, and we would like to address a few words to the parliamentary assistant. We would advise him that, having created a city of Gloucester he should assure himself that the city gets adequate representation at the regional level. The city of Gloucester is not going to get that now. It still does not have that. I feel somewhat disappointed that what I consider to be a deficiency is not corrected by this legislation.

It seems to me -- and it was obvious last year when we discussed legislation that came forward with amendments to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act -- that Gloucester was underrepresented as far as regional representation was concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: That was this year.

Mr. Roy: My colleague from Carleton East says it was this year. That is all the more reason for the parliamentary assistant to keep that in mind. I think of all areas Gloucester is the one that is the most underrepresented at the regional level.

5:40 p.m.

The other thing that we feel should be brought to the attention of the House is the fact that Gloucester has its own municipal police force. You, Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth), as a former Solicitor General, are well aware of that. Unfortunately, because it has its own municipal police force, it receives only $10 per head rather than the $15 per head it would receive if Ottawa-Carleton had a regional force. I deplore again that this government will say to areas like Ottawa-Carleton: “You can keep all your municipal forces, folks. We think you are doing a good job in policing in that area.” Then another arm of government will say, “But you will be penalized $5 a head for having this municipal force.”

I have been emphasizing this for seven or eight years, saying to the government that it is unfair. If we accept the fact that they are entitled to their own force, then they should not be discriminated against on the basis of these grants. The reason I raise this is that there is some mention of grants in the bill in connection with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I thought I should emphasize that in the area of the police, which is always important when new cities are created, there is a deficiency which should be corrected as soon as possible.

Having made these comments, I am very pleased for Gloucester that it will become a city. I do not know what the recent statistics are, but for a good number of years it was the fastest-growing municipality in Ontario, and it is a very progressive community.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It wasn’t as fast-growing as South Cayuga, was it?

Mr. Roy: I do not know what South Cayuga has to do with this, but obviously one of the reasons Gloucester grew progressively, logically and as quickly as it did was that there was not the involvement of the provincial government in coming along and buying all this land and proceeding on the basis that it could program a city’s development.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I am glad to see that we receive the support of our colleagues from the New Democratic Party when we are talking about South Cayuga. I know I am hopelessly off the point but, as I recall, when those major decisions were made the NDP was supporting that kind of decision on the buying up of land.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I think they did support that. At least we in this party can say that we consistently criticized and opposed that sort of program and favoured a logical approach to city building. We want to go on the record, my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party, as supporting this legislation. We wish the very best to Gloucester and say to Gloucester that progressively, as we move along, in all likelihood in the near future the city will elect a new member of the Legislature. I have no ill feelings towards my colleague the member for Carleton East but, let us face it, Gloucester is a Liberal city and in all likelihood will return a Liberal member. In spite of the fact that it is not yet in the fold, I am sure it will be. We wish it the very best.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. In a very few moments, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in support of this bill. It will be very pleasant to be a resident of the city of Gloucester, and thereby hangs a bit of a tale from the Ottawa Valley.

I know my friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) did not grow up in the Ottawa Valley, and therefore he has probably never accustomed himself to our weird ways of pronunciation. North Gower is one, while another which actually has very ancient roots is Gloucester. You will recall the old rhyme, Mr. Speaker, “Dr. Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain.” I suggest to the member for Ottawa East that is one way he can remember how to pronounce that admirable municipal name.

We are grateful to the government for having acceded to the wishes of municipal representatives and citizens of Gloucester in continuing the level of grants that will be provided under this bill for the construction of the pedestrian overpass over Highway 17. It is a vital project, a minimal step towards improvement of traffic-pedestrian problems in that area of very rapid growth where transportation planning has fallen way behind the growth of the municipality.

Secondly, I would like to reiterate the words of my colleague, our critic for Intergovernmental Affairs, when he underlined our feeling about the importance of having major municipalities represented by a ward system. I think people in the area of Gloucester have come to the recognition that, as a large and growing municipality with city status about to he bestowed upon us, it is time we had a ward system in Gloucester. I hope and expect the new council will take this matter in hand and initiate moves to develop a good ward system for the area.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members opposite for endorsing the bill. I will just comment briefly on the points raised by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton). It is not our intention to force a ward system on the municipality as quickly as possible. We will leave it to local option either to get a ward system or, if they wish, to apply for an exemption to having a ward system.

Mr. Charlton: I suggested that you encourage them.

Mr. Rotenberg: We will encourage them, but we are not going to force them.

The speech by the member for Ottawa East was a typical speech from him, wondering why we were so paternalistic and did not give this status to Gloucester when we gave it to Nepean. I would point out it is quite the contrary. Far from being paternalistic, as the member for Ottawa East wished we would be, we very much believe on this side of the House in local autonomy and local option.

In 1978, Nepean asked for city status, and we were more than pleased to give it to them. Gloucester did not ask for city status at that time, and we did not, as the Liberals would, force it upon them. We waited until Gloucester was ready and asked for it. We have given them city status at this stage because we do this on the basis of a municipality requesting it. We do not force it upon them. We practise local option; we do not just preach it.

As far as representation on local council goes, this was done, as the member for Ottawa East knows full well, last June. The final decision may not have been totally acceptable to everyone, since one just cannot work it out that way, but the member agreed with what went forward at that time, as he will no doubt remember.

As far as the grants are concerned, there are different grants as between cities and townships. One of the reasons some municipalities do not want to be erected to a city is that they lose some grants.

I was pleased to note the member for Carleton East is back in nursery rhymes. We all know why, and I congratulate her on that basis. I hope this bill will carry.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

5:50 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 172, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I in this party at the time of second reading had requested more details as to why the government felt Bill 172 was necessary. As I recall, from the way we left the discussion on the last occasion, we still had some concern, now that the government has decided to have this option of either registering what it calls a redemption certificate for the one who has paid the taxes or conveying the land to the applicant, as to when and how that discretion will be exercised by the government.

As my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) has said, we on this side are people who believe in the rule of law. On that basis, we felt it important that, if at all possible, discretion should be inserted in the legislation. In other words, we should not bind ourselves into a situation in which Mr. A says, “I have paid the taxes on the land, and I want you to exercise your discretion and convey the land to me.” Then Mr. B comes along, and the government says: “No, in your case we will not convey. What we are going to do is just allow you to have what we call a redemption certificate.”

I would like to know from the parliamentary assistant when the government will exercise discretion in favour of registering a redemption certificate or allow the conveyance of the land to the applicant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Up until now, the act has really read that the ministry must give consent to a conveyance, but in the few years this has been in force we have not given consent to any conveyances as far as I know. Basically, it is very difficult to put discretion into legislation. The principle on which we will operate is that, if anybody else’s rights are to be prejudiced by a conveyance, we will not consent to a conveyance. If a conveyance should be done and does not prejudice anyone else’s rights, then we will consent to a conveyance, but there may be some situations where these things have to be looked into.

What we are doing is changing the “must” in the act to a “may” -- the minister may consent to a conveyance rather than must consent. There could be cases, as there have been, in which people would try to use this act for purposes not in the public interest or in the interest of other people who have an interest in the property. That is why we need the discretionary part of the act.

Mr. Roy: I do not have any doubt that the parliamentary assistant means what he says. Some people would but I do not. Accepting his word that what he intends is that if anybody’s interest is going to be jeopardized he will not allow a conveyance to the applicant, why would he not put that in the legislation? The legislation should read that the government may, given certain circumstances, either convey or let them register a certificate but, if someone’s interest is going to be jeopardized, there will be no conveyance. I do not have the proper wording of this amendment, but it seems to me that is what my colleague the member for Nipissing and I were talking about the other day.

Let us say some lawyers of the reputation of a Mr. Goodman, for instance, came along to the ministry and said, “We have paid the taxes on that and we think you should convey the property to us.” Let us say the other fellow was represented by a simpleminded fellow like myself. You say to Goodman, “I think we will convey in your case, and in the other case we will just get you to register a certificate.”

The exercise of a discretion is something we are very leery of. I do not know if it is because the Tories have been in power for 37 years that we are cautious about it. If, as the parliamentary assistant says, someone’s interest will be jeopardized by a conveyance, why does he not put it in the legislation?

Mr. Rotenberg: There are times when there may be a difference of opinion as to whether someone’s interest is or is not prejudiced. I know the member for Ottawa East was putting his tongue in his check when he made those remarks, but I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, this ministry and this government exercise discretion based on the merits of the case and do not take into account at all who may or may not represent whom.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say again on this bill may be repetitive of what I said last Tuesday. If it is repetitive, it is because we do not have any answers to the questions that were asked of the parliamentary assistant last Tuesday.

The bill sets out two options. The first option is to register in the land registry office a redemption certificate in respect of the land in form three. What happens after that redemption certificate is registered; for how long is it good; what happens to any encumbrancers who may have an interest in that property; just what are the rights of the person who registers this redemption certificate; what are the rights of previous and subsequent encumbrancers? Perhaps I may have answers to those questions first.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, if under option (a) a redemption certificate is issued, only those persons who have an interest in the property, such as an owner, lienholder or mortgagee, can pay the taxes and make any claim.

As I believe I indicated last time, and I am more than pleased to clarify, in the case of that person who pays the taxes and receives the redemption certificate, the amount he pays is added on to his interest in the land. For example, let us say the second mortgagee is in for $20,000 and pays a $2,000 tax bill. His second mortgage then becomes $22,000 behind the first mortgagee and ahead of the third mortgagee. All other persons, lienholders, mortgagees or owners, remain on title as they were before. That is a redemption certificate.

If under the present act the land is conveyed free and clear, then all other persons in effect are wiped out. That is why we do not want to have that happen unless nobody’s rights are prejudiced. Under a redemption certificate, that provision is added on to that person’s interest in the property and everyone else remains in the same position.

Mr. Bolan: How long is the redemption certificate for? For example, suppose I have a mechanic’s lien on the property and I am number three in the order of priority; ahead of me are a second mortgagee, a first mortgagee and the registered owner of the property. Suppose I pay the tax arrears of $1,000 to protect my interest in the property. That $1,000 then becomes a lien on the property in addition to the mechanic’s lien which I already have. My understanding of it is that those moneys which I pay for arrears of taxes are also a priority ahead of anybody else who may have an interest in the land, including the first and second mortgagees. Is that correct?

Mr. Rotenberg: The redemption certificate would be like a mortgage; it is on and it is permanent. If I gave a mortgage on a property, whether it is a third or fourth mortgage or whatever, that is a permanent situation. A redemption certificate is lien or a title or a mortgage on the property and remains on the property until it is paid off. It is added on in the order of precedence where you were in your previous interest. If you are the third mortgagee, it is added on to your third mortgage; if you are the first mortgagee, it is added on to your first mortgage. If you are the owner and paid it, your taxes are simply wiped out and it is not a lien because you are the owner. If you have a mechanic’s lien, wherever you are in the precedence, that is where you go. It becomes like a mortgage in that it is not timed but is permanent until it is paid off.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, should not that priority which was first, that is, the claim for taxes on a property in advance of the interests of the first and second mortgagees, remain a priority over the first and second mortgages, rather than being added as part of your third mortgage or mechanic’s lien, according to the example given?

I would think that only if there were equity in the property would the third mortgagee or the mechanic’s lienholder take that additional risk, rather than presume some priority in front of the first and second mortgages as the tax claim that he is paying off would have been.

Mr. Roy: Nobody would pay the taxes if he did not get priority.

Mr. Chairman: Order. It is now six o’clock. Are there going to be more questions on this?

Some hon. members: Yes.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.