Hansard Transcripts 1981-Dec-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, could we engage in some spurious points of order and privilege for a while in order to delay and give them some time to come?

Mr. Speaker: What else would be new? Please proceed.

Mr. Peterson: It is the Christmas season. I feel charitable, Mr. Speaker, but I --

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum. I do not see a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of privilege to bring to the attention of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a question or a point of privilege?

Mr. Bradley: A point of privilege, that is what it is. I just wonder whether the Speaker is going to report at this time on the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) and the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) yesterday. Does he have a report for the House at this time?

Mr. Speaker: It is neither the duty nor the responsibility of the Speaker to report.

Mr. Bradley: Respond?

Mr. Speaker: Or to respond.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Kerrio: At least two or three weeks ago, I raised what I thought was a very important question with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). It relates to the astronomical deficit we have in the auto industry. He promised to bring figures and some report. Because of the gravity of the situation. I am very disappointed and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could see if he will come in with an answer.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will not, but you may ask the minister the question at the appropriate time.

NOTE RECEIVED BY MEMBER

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: There have been some scurrilous things said in the last few days about a certain note I received in a brown paper envelope last Thursday. I will read it: "Treasurer Frank Miller had his ministry pay for a Christmas reception at the Royal York Hotel," and it goes on.

I just want to make it very clear that although there are a number of spelling mistakes in this note and therefore one might presume it comes from the cabinet, I did not say that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) sent this to me.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we are all relieved and pleased to hear that.

Mr. Peterson: You are sure, Mr. Speaker, there are no more points of privilege from my friends?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would you put the hook on the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel)? He is interfering with the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat so the member for London Centre may proceed.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Sudbury East. How could he possibly sell out like that? That is the question. I am told he can be easily had.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXING OF DAY-CARE CENTRES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. It was reported in yesterday's press that the provincial realty tax assessors have visited various day-care centres located in public schools in North York and advised the operators that the space would be assessed by the Ministry of Revenue and taxed by the municipality in 1982. The estimated yearly cost per child would be in the order of $125.

Given that a large proportion of Ontario's 60,000 children in licensed day-care centres are from low income families, subsidized by municipalities and thereby indirectly by the province, does the minister not realize that taxing day-care centres in schools will add to the financial burden of working people and to the pressure on already strained municipal social service budgets? Why then has the government decided, and whose decision was it, to go after day-care centres in public schools?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, that is not a change of policy at all. It is the responsibility of the assessment department under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Revenue to assess all properties of that nature. The fact that they are in a school building is not relevant to the situation.

Although everybody can talk about purity on this issue, when we do not assess property along these lines, it is the municipality that comes forward and says: "It is your responsibility, Mr. Ontario Government, through the Ministry of Revenue, through the assessment function, to assess property if there is property that should be assessed for taxation purposes. Regardless of the use, it should and must be put on the roll." In fact, that is the legislation.

Let me quote from a letter that points that out to us. This is a letter from the treasury department of the city of North York, and was written earlier this year to my assessment commissioner for North York:

"As discussed with you today, I am enclosing a list obtained from Mr. Don Chisholm, property manager for the board of education, of properties which they are presently or will be in the very near future, leasing. It would be appreciated if you would have your assessors investigate these properties to determine if any of the areas occupied should be assessed as taxable." They go on to say: "We have asked the school board to put you on their mailing list so we will know of all similar transactions as they come forward."

I think that is our responsibility. I know we can debate the merits of the end use of that particular space, but I think we have to recognize that over the next number of years, more and more excess school space will be put to other uses. It is quite proper, quite in order and in fact the law that we assess it.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister think it is fair and sensible that a municipal day-care centre located in a public school is exempt under section 3 of the act, but a nonprofit day-care centre subsidized by the municipality possibly in the same building in the same school is taxable under the act? Does that not speak to a ridiculous policy'? Why does he not change the Assessment Act so that all nonprofit licensed day-care centres in this province will be exempt from municipal taxes?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that a case could be made as to why any particular service should or should not pay taxes. Again, that is not relevant. In nonprofit versus profit-making ventures in day care or in other items, there is no difference whatsoever in the realty tax itself; both are subject to realty tax. The difference is that the nonprofit corporation or agency is not subject to business tax. That is the only difference.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I hope the minister realizes that with his policy he is making it impossible in areas such as my riding to have any kind of day-care centre. If on the one hand he is denying money to day-care centres and on the other hand he is taxing nonprofit day-care centres so heavily, can the minister tell us how he thinks the problem should be solved, especially in working-class areas such as my riding? Can the minister also tell us, since he did not answer the previous question, if he thinks the Assessment Act can be changed so that nonprofit day-care centres can be exempt from property taxes?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that last part, I suppose any act can be changed, but you have to think of the intent of all legislation: Is it fair and equitable to all? I think that is the key point. There are many businesses in operation that are nonprofit. Maybe they did not plan it that way and hope it will not turn out that way, but they are nonprofit in the meantime, particularly in this day and age. So really that is irrelevant to the question.

The other thing the honourable member is forgetting is that the provincial government does not derive one red cent from the assessment function per se. Assessment is done for the benefit of revenue to the municipalities. It is, of course, open to municipal councils to make grants back to a particular organization if they wish to do so; that is always open to them if they feel they are justified or if the cause that is put before them deserves their consideration.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister understood the question. It is not commercial versus nonprofit; it is municipal that is not taxed under this system. The government is creating a discriminatory system. It is robbing one pocket and putting it into the other pocket. It is putting a very heavy burden on an already overpressed social services budget. Why does the minister not just change the law and provide wider access for all people across the province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as always this government is constantly looking at its laws and regulations to make sure they are fair and equitable to all.

CHESHIRE HOME POLICY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I want to draw the provincial secretary's attention -- I know she will be concerned about this -- to a situation with a constituent in my riding, a chap by the name of Slim Adams. Formerly he lived in a Cheshire Home, and now he lives in Parkwood chronic care hospital in London. In November 1979 he received an inheritance of $100 from his mother, who had passed away. The ministry decided to deduct that inheritance from him at the rate of $10 a month. It is deducting that from his comfort allowance, which should have been $61 but is now $51 a month, over the next 10 months. Does the provincial secretary like that policy? Is she proud of her government doing that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I do not think it is a question of being proud of my government. I do not think my government is even aware that has happened. I certainly am not. I find it appalling, and I will look into it right away.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Do I have her undertaking to go to the minister, who I gather makes the decisions -- I am not sure exactly what the provincial secretary does -- and discuss it with him and change that iniquitous, unfair law, particularly at Christmas time, when it is robbing $100 out of this poor mans pocket?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I have already suggested to the honourable member we will look into it immediately. We do not condone that kind of action at all.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What is the policy of the ministry? If that was not $100 but was $3,000, what would the position be? What is the ministry's position on inheritance?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think there are times when, depending on the amount of the inheritance, it would have to be looked into; after all, it is taxpayers' money. But I think in cases like this there is no need for that kind of action by the government or by anyone else.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister explain why at no time in the proposals requested by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation -- which resulted in the decision to form a joint venture between TIW Industries and UTDC to build the intermediate capacity transit cars at Kingston destined for Vancouver, Scarborough and possibly Detroit -- did the minister request the firms from which he sought information to provide him with any information about the production costs of such vehicles? Why did he seek no firm information about the total cost of the vehicles or the plan?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first I would say that the requests for proposals issued to the five companies were issued by UTDC.

Mr. Foulds: They are responsible to the minister, are they not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They sure are.

I have trouble with the rest of the honourable member's questions. The companies were asked to put forward proposals on the basis that they would enter into a joint venture agreement with UTDC for the manufacture of these vehicles. This was not a tender or a bid for the supply of the vehicles, because the components of the vehicles, many hundreds of different components, will be bought, either by UTDC and supplied to the joint venture company, or by the joint venture company and assembled. The car body itself, the shell, is to be manufactured by the joint venture company, so it was not a situation where we would ask for a price or a bid as to how much per car. They asked for proposals -- labour rates, I believe, overhead rates, capital contribution, capital financing proposals -- but not a bid in the true terms of a bid.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is this document of four pages and one paragraph, which was anonymously received by the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the sole information that was sought and the sole information that was evaluated by the UTDC and his officials? Will the minister, as has been requested, table the replies from the various suppliers -- Can-Car, Bombardier, McDonnell Douglas and TIW? Does he think it is a good principle, a good business proposition, to go into this joint venture not knowing what it will cost him and not having a firm cap on any of the costs of the plant or the vehicles?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is very easy to say "not having a firm cap" on the cost of the vehicles. I can assure the member that the type of contract entered into today, especially the contract I can recite that was entered into with his favourite company in Thunder Bay, is not a firm contract. It is a base fit with escalation factors built into it, which a company on a long-term project like this has to have. So there is not a cap on any type of contract like that today.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister looked at the various bids himself? Has the minister himself had a look at the bids, tenders or proposals, whichever word he wishes to use? Is he satisfied that this new company can build a facility, with the capital cost involved with that, and produce a product at a lower price than the existing firm in Thunder Bay that needs the assistance, particularly in these economic times?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I understand the large amount of information that was supplied by the proposers was supplied to the Urban Transportation Development Corporation. It was reviewed by the management of UTDC and a decision was made by the board of directors of UTDC to enter into the contract with TIW Industries. I personally have seen an executive summary, I guess one would call it, of the evaluation of the different companies. The decision, as I said, was made by the board of directors; under the legislation of the Canada Corporations Act it is charged with the responsibility of operating that company.

As to whether the cars should have been built in Thunder Bay or in Kingston, that again is another management decision. The cars must be assembled at Kingston; they must be there for the many hours of testing at different times during the manufacturing process.

I am certainly aware of the facilities at Thunder Bay. As a matter of fact, it is only a few weeks ago that I entered into a contract through the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority for $59 million for the construction of another 71 double-deck, bilevel, GO Transit cars.

Mr. Mancini: What do you have against Thunder Bay? Why are you taking jobs away from Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is almost $60 million that my ministry put into Thunder Bay that the member's colleague, I am sure, would like to have seen go to Windsor.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister table in this House the evaluation by UTDC? Will he table any evaluation that his ministry officials did? Will he table those agreements, the arrangements and the figures in the House, as evidently Mr. Foley of UTDC promised the Save Can-Car committee and a meeting arranged by my colleague and friend, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy)? Will he make those public so we can publicly scrutinize the reasons that UTDC and his ministry decided to enter into this agreement? Can he explain why no financial data was asked for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any financial backup was asked for. We invited what I believe are five very reputable companies, which are well known in this country, to submit proposals. Those proposals were evaluated. My colleague, the member for Fort William, has arranged a meeting for the Save Can-Car committee and officials to meet with the board of directors.

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) or the Premier (Mr. Davis) but they do not seem to be present. I will ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) if she can interrupt her conversation so that I can therefore place a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Is everybody ready?

How many deaths and how many inquests and inquest jury reports such as that concerning Gregory McCaughey, who died from asphyxiation from his own vomit in Beverley private hospital, will it take before the government closes down private hospitals like Beverley and opens up the 650 long-term beds the government has promised and the 2,000 that are needed in Metro Toronto?

When is the government going to implement the first two recommendations of the coroner's jury report on these important matters?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Health. The minister has all of those concerns under very active consideration. He has already announced the closure of the Beverley hospital. I am sure the recommendations the inquest jury has handed down will be very carefully considered by the Minister of Health with a view to implementing them.

Mr. Foulds: I was not aware the minister had announced the closedown. I thought they were only beginning the process. That is good news.

Can the provincial secretary tell me whether, as a matter of policy, her government is now going to take the steps to phase out those private hospitals as recommended by that coroner's jury? Will she tell me, if her Minister of Health was so concerned, why were there complaints received by the Ministry of Health concerning abuse of patients at that hospital over the previous number of years, including complaints that an elderly woman was asked to bathe in water that had already been used by two patients and that another elderly patient had been found restrained, sitting in her own faeces?

Will she tell me why, if her minister was so concerned, those steps were not taken, and steps were not taken earlier to close down that hospital? Is this the kind of entrepreneurial innovation in the private sector the minister talks about?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That last comment was uncalled for. I think the Minister of Health in this province has a great deal of concern for those whose care he is responsible for, and he has demonstrated it ever since he became the Minister of Health. Those remarks are beneath the honourable member. The Minister of Health in this province is concerned about everyone who is in care, either in a hospital, a nursing home, a rest home or an acute-treatment hospital. He will continue to be concerned.

Mr. Breaugh: If he was so concerned, how come this happened?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is a good question. As long as human beings are in charge, we will continue to have problems like that. But as quickly as they are brought to the attention of the ministry, I can assure the honourable member they will be acted upon.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, we asked the Minister of Health in estimates a week ago, prior to the report coming from the inquest, about not only the private hospital in question but all private hospitals, and his response was that although he had investigations going on at that spot for somewhere in the neighbourhood of five years, he could not make any further comment because it was sub judice.

Now that the facts are known and the recommendations are made, would the provincial secretary ask the minister if he is prepared, when we get into concurrence in another week, to make a full statement to this House about all aspects of the recommendations and what his ministry is intending to do about them?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the concerns of the honourable member to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Foulds: May I ask the minister why the 12 complaints over the previous six years were obviously not acted on, since Gregory McCaughey had to die before the ministry and the minister felt his concern was active enough and real enough to close the hospital? When are they going to implement the long-term beds that we need, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but throughout this whole province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, the minister is well aware of the problems of that hospital. It has been closed --

Mr. Foulds: Sure he was; he did nothing for six years.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am not aware of the investigation that went on for six years, or the independent instances that the member for Port Arthur refers to. He will have to direct that to the minister. I can only say that as quickly as possible the minister is bringing on line more accommodation right across the province.

2:30 p.m.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the wandering Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the Provincial Auditor's comments on the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. The auditor states he conducted a complete review of the board's administration at the request of the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could the minister inform us when the deputy minister made that request, and what was the reason for him making it?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the date was October 19, 1981. It was to have the matter perfectly straightened out from the auditor's point of view. By then we had received the auditor's comments. There were some discussions back at the time it was before the procedural affairs committee in respect to those matters, because they too had made some comments.

We have insisted that the entire machinery of the LLBO be straightened out in a way that would not allow this kind of thing to happen again. The new chairman had a chance to put it into place by October 19. We have asked the auditor basically to review the setup we have, to be sure we would not have this kind of event happening again. We are satisfied that with the new procedural measures implemented down there, as well as the fact that the individuals involved are no longer with the board, there should not be a recurrence.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I heard the minister say it was October 19 of this year in his answer to my question, but I did not get a clarification of precisely why. But let me go to my supplementary question to the minister.

The Provincial Auditor noted, in his report, several instances where a senior official of the board provided hospitality to vendors doing regular business with the board, and frequently to other board staff members. The justification for much of this hospitality was questionable. Could the minister identify who this senior official was and who were the vendors to whom he extended the hospitality?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get the information on the vendors to whom the hospitality was extended, but the individual involved would be Mr. Russell Cooper. At the time he was the executive director of the liquor licence board, which is the chief executive officer.

The approach taken by me was the same as that of my predecessor, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea). We felt board members might find themselves in a rather difficult position if the vendors, who were perhaps applying for licences, extended them courtesies. If the organizations, or for that matter even those people who are providing distilling facilities in the province, were to be extending courtesies to our board members or to employees of the board, that might well open them up to some conflict of interest. Consequently, it was our feeling that whenever there was some hospitality, the bill should be picked up by the board, not the vending agency.

Mr. Bradley: My final supplementary is going to be the second part of my first question. That is, why did the deputy minister ask for this study?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The root of the matter was that, as a result of the information that came out, we were not satisfied with the manner in which matters were being conducted within the board. We felt there were some matters that had gone awry, as has been borne out by both the auditor's report and the public accounts committee's review of the matter. They were obviously unfortunate incidents that had flowed back over previous years. We wanted to make sure the board was functioning in a way the auditor would find totally compatible with his principles and directions.

FOUR WINDS RABBITRY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Could the minister explain why it is taking the native community branch of his ministry so long to make proposals for saving the almost 250,000 investment in Four Winds Rabbitry which has gone bankrupt in the Iron Bridge area of my riding?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the Ontario Métis and Non-Status Indian Association for some time, along with the federal government, to try to find a solution for this venture that is apparently going bankrupt. It is really very difficult to know what happened. If we listen to some people, they will tell us the rabbitry was placed in the wrong place; it should have been closer to the big markets. Other people will tell us there is something strange about the environment of Iron Bridge, and that the rabbits are not quite as active there as they might be in some other areas.

Mr. Martel: Prolific.

Mr. Wildman: Are you kidding?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But anyway we are continuing to work with the group along with the federal government. As the member knows this is a joint approach. I believe the federal government made an initial grant of some $500,000. I think our grant was something like $234,000. At the present time, the understanding is that if the venture should fold up we would retain at least some of the assets that are there, but apparently only three of the original 21 members of the local band are still active in the project. It is a very complicated thing. We have not given up on it but, as the member has indicated, it takes some time to find a solution.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: I can understand why the minister might be somewhat facetious since this whole thing has been a comedy of errors ever since it was started. Could he please tell me whether or not he thinks this kind of investment, which was carried out on the advice of his native community branch as well as the federal government, is wise? Is he able to come up with anything other than the physical assets as a result of this expenditure of public funds, supposedly to provide approximately 13 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised the member would suggest that neither the federal government nor the provincial government should go into any kind of venture with the Indians unless there was a strong indication and a strong belief that it would work.

Mr. Foulds: That is not what he suggested.

Mr. Martel: He didn't say that.

Mr. Foulds: Your tongue has only a passing knowledge of the truth.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In some of these things one has to take some kind of a chance. That after all is what one does anywhere else. I just do not understand why he would suggest we should have withheld our funds and not taken a chance at all.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: With respect, I did not suggest the minister should not put funds into it. I am suggesting that once he has done that he is responsible for trying to ensure the operation is successful. To argue there was not enough breeding stock or they were not active enough is ridiculous.

What has the ministry done to try and save the stock which over a month ago only had about two weeks of feed left?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I have indicated, we and the federal representatives are trying to work out ways and means with the remaining three members of the band who are still active in this to salvage what is salvageable. If the project has to close up there are some assets there and some of those assets will be returned to the federal government and some will be returned to us.

As I tried to tell the member before, it is a complicated thing. We have tried our level best to make this a viable operation and unfortunately, as at this moment, it would appear it must terminate.

2:40 p.m.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment that relates to the Stouffville dump site. We are very concerned by the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board to allow the expansion of the Stouffville dump site. However, one note of optimism emerged in the statement the minister made yesterday or the day before concerning his philosophy regarding appeals. I would Like to ask the minister if he remembers making the following statement:

"I still happen to believe that when there s an administrative decision made by an administrator -- albeit a senior one -- in my ministry or any other, that there ought to be an opportunity for some review of that if the individual who bears the brunt of that decision feels that it was somehow unfair, and that they ought to be entitled to some hearing or review."

Given this statement, and given the fact that under the present system interveners cannot appeal a decision of the board whereas the applicant can, will the minister amend the legislation and allow the people of Stouffville the right to appeal the decision of the board?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the provision in the legislation the honourable member cites is one that causes me considerable concern. I think it is an inequity in the legislation and I have asked the staff of the ministry to review the matter.

I cannot say I can have any changes implemented in time for immediate reconsideration of that situation, but I think it is important to understand that what the member has referred to as the decision of the board is not a decision but a recommendation. I suppose to the extent they have decided on that recommendation it is a decision, but its effect is solely that of a recommendation to the director of the approvals branch of my ministry. He is the one who ultimately makes a decision based on the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Board and other relevant information.

I assure the member and residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville the recommendation from the board is not all that will be considered by the director as he reviews the recommendation. A number of other matters were raised after the conclusion of the hearings held by the board earlier this year and I think it would be only appropriate for the director to take them into consideration as well. That, I can assure the member, will be the case.

When the director will be in a position to make his decision I do not know. I expect it will be in the relatively near future. But it is probably going to take a few weeks to do a thorough review of the recommendations, weigh the evidence and information that has come forward since July and arrive at a decision.

So in a sense the board's decision, although not formally appealable, is a recommendation to the director, who is not bound by it. It is not legally binding; it is something he takes into consideration along with other relevant information in coming to a decision.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is my understanding. In fact, I will read the minister that section, section 33(5)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act, which states:

"A hearing by the board is for the purpose of making a report containing information and advice, and the report is not in any way legally binding in any decision or determination that may be made."

On that basis I wonder if the minister will consider reversing the recommendation of the board either by allowing an appeal by the citizens or, alternatively, by stopping the issuance of a certificate of approval for expanding the site? Further, how will we ever stop the not-in-my-backyard syndrome in getting rid of wastes unless the public has exactly the kind of appeal procedure at its disposal that the people have who are putting these dumps in place?

Does the minister not think it is time every citizen of Ontario had the same rights as those who pollute the environment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated my position on the second part of the honourable member's question. It was rather lengthy, and now I am madly trying to recall what the first part of it was. Does the honourable member remember what the first part of his question was?

Mr. Kerrio: I will take that under advisement and bring the minister the answer tomorrow.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member does not remember the first part of his question either? When I am listening to a lengthy question like that I am concentrating on the latter part as it approaches. It is bad enough if I cannot recall the first part, but if the member does not remember it that is serious.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to inform the minister --

Mr. Speaker: I thought you were going to take it under advisement.

Mr. Kerrio: I changed my mind.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Mr. Kerrio: I may be accused of not being open with all our information.

My question to the minister had to do with the fact that he philosophically suggested that -- he could go on from there now.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I recall now the member asked me if I would reverse the decision. I think it is important for him to read through the whole of the legislation and realize there is a point in that process where I as minister am sort of the final appeal.

I think it would be entirely inappropriate at this stage in the process for me to intervene and direct the director as to what his decision ought to be. It seems to me that kind of intervention on my part at this stage would serve to disqualify me from discharging the responsibilities I have under the legislation, ultimately -- after an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board -- to be the final arbiter on an ultimate appeal to the minister.

That is an option that is open to me. I could disqualify myself and intervene, in which case one of my colleagues in cabinet -- there are two who back me up in my absence and in case of disqualification -- either the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) would hear the appeal. They would be the ones who would have to determine any appeal that would come if I were to disqualify myself.

I have not yet reached the point where I am prepared to intervene so as to disqualify myself from discharging my responsibilities under the act.

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, as the report of the assessment board is already out is it possible those concerned people in the Stouffville area could get a copy of the recommendation the board has made to the director?

Second, would it be possible, since the review board has made its recommendation to the director, to hold off a director's decision until such time as the minister has an opportunity to review and amend the legislation so the concerned people there would have a chance to appeal it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wrote it down this time so that I would not forget.

As far as the copy of the recommendation of the report is concerned, certainly that should be available. In fact, anyone who was a party to the hearings ought to have already received a copy. If there are individuals who have not, we will certainly make sure they get copies if they would contact my office and indicate the address to which they would like them sent.

With regard to holding off the director's decision, that is certainly an undertaking I would not at this point be prepared to give. The possibility of having any amendment brought before the House in the time remaining during this session is rather remote and that would mean delaying the decision until some time in the spring session. It is altogether possible the director's decision might be one the citizens of Whitchurch-Stouffville might welcome. I am sure if that were the case they would not want to wait that long.

TOMATO CANNING INDUSTRY

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The government during the election campaign last spring pointed with pride to the fact that it had made a grant of $250,000 to the Southland Canning Company to open a tomato paste processing establishment. That company has now gone bankrupt and that $250,000 of public funds is down the drain.

The minister will also recall that during his estimates, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) asked whether or not it would be possible to build a small tomato paste factory in his area in order to encourage further growth of tomatoes. The reply to that question, to be found on page R-160 of the Hansard record, was given by the deputy minister.

2:50 p.m.

I quote exactly: "Without checking with the minister I am going to answer that one." One can see who is in the saddle in that ministry. He continued: "To be very frank, there are multinational companies that control this business. To make something reasonable happen in this province, you have to get them all in a room and knock their heads together. The suggestion that you will get some big improvement in this province in that kind of product by some small plants in some small places is attractive but it ain't going to make much of a dent. You need a big guy. It could be a co-op. I suggested to some of the companies that came in that maybe we should get a god-damned provincial co-op and do it ourselves."

Since the minister's one effort at building the tomato paste factory has gone down the drain along with $250,000, is it the ministry's intention to proceed with a co-op, god-damned or otherwise, in order to fulfill the government's election promise?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am sure we all regret one company has had financial problems. My staff are working with the trustee to see what payments can be made and what security there can be for our money. The owner of that company was in ill health and that, plus the tomato crop this year, created problems.

In answer to the final part of the honourable member's question, under our Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program we have been in dialogue with different companies which are considering getting involved in this industry.

Mr. MacDonald: I am curious to know whether a co-op is going to be involved and the United Co-operatives of Ontario and the co-op movement would be interested whether that was flying a kite or a realistic effort. Since he is now engaged at long last in long-term planning for the agricultural industry, is there any indication from the minister as to when he might have some detailed plans for rebuilding the food processing industry or is this going to drag on for months and into years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I hope there will be some quick announcements, maybe within a month. We have been in dialogue with several companies. The member asked if it will drag on for years. Yes, I hope we will continue making grants into the future and helping out.

Mr. Mancini: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I have been in touch with the senior officials of his ministry. I had a chance to speak with his deputy minister when I was informed he had met with some of the financiers involved in Southland Canning, in particular the banks. At the time this information was provided to me last week it appeared this company might be saved.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Food inform me why his senior officials had such an optimistic outlook for the future of this company a few days ago, whereas we are now told the company has gone bankrupt? Why has he allowed the banks to force this company into bankruptcy when it appeared to his own officials that the company could be saved?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well the banks were the ones that put the company in receivership, not our ministry. He knew that before he ever called my officials. I expect my officials told him the trustees handling it are still in the process of evaluating what money is there and what the debts are. That is what I told the member for York South. The member for Essex South did not listen to my answer.

Mr. Mancini: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It appears the member for York South has said in the House that the company has gone bankrupt. That is a very serious matter indeed. It appears to me from the minister's reply to my question he said the company is in receivership, which is quite different from being bankrupt. I would like the record to be clear. I would like a clear statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food as to whether the company is bankrupt, as was said by the member for York South, or whether it is still in receivership, as was said by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am not sure how much difference there is between the two. The member apparently is a lawyer who understands this. My information is that the bank put the company into receivership. It is now in the hands of trustees. If that is different from bankruptcy then --

Mr. Mancini: That is a lot different from being bankrupt and you know it and so should the member for York South know that. A sleazy question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TOW-TRUCK OPERATORS

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the exposé in the Toronto Star this Monday concerning tow-truck operators. As the minister has no doubt read, the story claims Metro Toronto tow-truck operators and body shops are ripping off drivers to the tune of about $5 million per year.

In addition, I wonder if the minister knows that tow-truck operators get about a 10 per cent kickback on the cost of repairs from body shops? These kickbacks are financed by inflating the actual prices paid for repairs, which cost is then passed on to insurance companies.

Could the minister indicate to us whether this problem, which was identified by this reported story in the Star, has been turned up by the investigators in the business practices division of his ministry? If not, why not? As a result, what is the minister going to do about this problem?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I do not have the answer to that question but I will try to provide it later this week.

Mr. Elston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would also comment on whether or not his investigators had an opportunity to listen to many police officers who have openly said they are aware of this problem. If they have spoken to those officers, why have steps not been taken by the ministry to inform the public about this practice that has been going on in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The same answer applies.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In his investigation, I wonder if the minister would inquire into the whole problem of the regulation of this industry and find out why the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has refused to take the action that was necessary years ago to put tow trucks under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act? This would not have happened in the first place if the government had done what our party has been suggesting for years.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That is something we will take into account.

GM SETTLEMENTS

Mr. Swart: My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister's predecessor who sits to his right stated in this House 18 months ago that he was, hopeful of giving a very pleasant announcement within a couple of weeks for owners of Oldsmobile cars that had Chevrolet motors installed in them." After these 18 intervening months, has the minister resolved the problem left to him by the former minister? Is he about ready to make a very pleasant announcement to those owners?

Hon. Mr. Walker: If the member is talking about the Chevmobile problem, the situation still remains the same. General Motors is asking for special protection and we are not prepared to grant that. Because we will not grant them special protection against ultimately being prosecuted, because we want to treat them in the same way as we treat any other person who has been involved in this kind of unsatisfactory approach, they are not prepared to pay.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that 46 states in the United States and six other provinces in Canada have reached an agreement with General Motors so that owners could get at least $200? Is he not aware the issue is now at least four years old and many owners have sold their cars? In fact, many of them may be dead. Does the minister not think it is about time he got a settlement for the people in this province or is he, on behalf of General Motors, just going to let it fade away?

Hon. Mr. Walker: My understanding is they signed away the right in the other states and the company was given immunity in those cases.

Mr. Swart: At least they got something for it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Our view is that General Motors does not deserve immunity to prosecution in this case and we are not prepared to grant that even if we could. We insist they be treated like any other citizen of this province.

3 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not realize that while he is being very tough and taking this hard line with General Motors, he is leaving the ordinary citizen out there not only without protection but with no alternative but to try to sue General Motors? His ministry, in fact, told a very impoverished working person in Hamilton to go and sue General Motors, of all things, to try to get his $200 or $300, because he had a Chev engine in an Oldsmobile car. It is all very well to be tough with General Motors, but the only people suffering at the moment are the people who are stuck with the cars.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we recognize what the member is saying and that continues to be a pressure on us, as well as a pressure on General Motors, I am sure. But the fact is the company is insisting on special treatment and we are not prepared to grant it special immunity treatment.

GAS FURNACE VALVES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's reply last Friday to my question of November 17, he said he felt the electronically operated vent dampers could be dangerous if there were a power failure. Will the minister tell me what objection his ministry would have against thermally actuated automatic vent dampers with a sensor unit for safety backup that would cut off the gas in emergencies? I have one of them here, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Walker: What is the name of the one the member has there?

Mr. Ruston: Energy saving and thermally actuated automatic vent damper.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think that is the one we have also been looking at. The problem here is knowing what will and will not cause death. Our biggest concern is really the backup of the fumes. The thermally operated one sits in a closed position at all times except when the heat is on and the fins expand to permit the exhaust of the gas fumes, but if, for some reason, the vents stay closed that creates a real problem --

Mr. Ruston: It cuts the gas off.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, I know. We have no difficulty with the ones installed by the companies that make them on furnaces in plants. It is the retrofit problem. No province in Canada has been able to overcome the retrofit problem. The fear always is that some kind of death may occur from the buildup of the fumes. In his encouragement of this kind of appliance prior to the testing being satisfactory to our requirements, if in the pursuit of this the member is prepared to give a warranty that if someone dies he will stand up and take some responsibility for it, that might provide us with a persuasive argument. But at the moment we have not been able to find people prepared to do that.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister prove his ministry has actually tested these units or units similar to this? I do not mean this one in particular. Naturally, I am not promoting any one. I am just saying we are losing 20 per cent of our heat on furnaces by not having something similar on them. Will the minister give permission for me to try one out in my house? I do not intend to have a by-election in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member may not attend the by-election, but we may. We may well take advantage of that opportunity. This is an offer we cannot refuse, perhaps.

It is a very serious problem. The member mentioned the saving of 20 per cent. That 20 per cent does not seem to hold up according to our reviews of the matter. The best that can be achieved is three to five per cent. The 20 per cent figure was achieved in Michigan, where they had especially large chimneys that allowed for an exhaust of an amazing amount of heat and they were able to cut that down by 20 per cent.

But in Ontario we do not have just such a chimney and the 20 per cent figure would not be achieved. All we are saying is, if we can be satisfied the public will be safe in the use of those then by all means we are prepared to encourage their use. But we do not have satisfactory proof. As I mentioned on Friday I will share additional information with the member that will give him the benefit of the technical expertise we have to show that just at the moment it does not measure up and the proof is not there that people will be 100 per cent safe.

We cannot afford to have deaths occurring in this province as a result of a malfunctioning of one of those types of units. The fact that they have not been approved in any part of Canada is testimony to what we are doing in this province.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: As long ago as October 30 and again on November 5, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) went into great detail, and apparently experienced great pain, in telling us that his program of sales tax and property tax rebates to seniors was working 99.9 efficiently.

I would like to make the point that those of us who apparently have all of the 0.1 per cent of the unresolved cases have a difficult time explaining to our constituents why they are not getting any action from that ministry. I would like to pass on to him 19 client inquiry forms received in my office within two days, and I would also like to point out that calls from my office and from the homes of these various clients elicited such responses as, We cannot help you. You had better call Van Horne," or "I am sorry, we lost two tape discs so we do not know where your file information might be."

The seniors who are waiting for this money -- many of them waiting for it for Christmas -- want to hear something more than platitudes in this House. They want some action. That is my point of privilege, and I would like a straight answer.

Mr. MacDonald: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has indicated the number he had in two days. I have drawn to the attention of the minister that I have had 60 in the last 10 or so days in my constituency office. Surely something has to be done other than the idle promise -- because I suspect it is going to be idle -- that these cheques will be out by Christmas time.

Mr. McKessock: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, one of the minister's civil servants said to my constituency secretary this morning that the MPPs were at fault for all these problems. I wonder what he means by that, unless it is because we passed the legislation.

Mr. Swart: On the same point of privilege, although I have another one to ask afterwards, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would look into the matter of whether the minister misled the House by saying everything was fine with regard to these payments, because the auditor's report, which came out yesterday, condemns his ministry in unequivocal terms for the handling of the senior citizens' grants.

Mr. Mackenzie: Also on the same point, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a hardship being worked on a number of older people, and almost half the calls coming into my constituency office right up to this point in time are from people who have not got the rebate. Certainly something has to be done with this incompetent minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the point has been well made. We are all facing the same problem. The minister is going to respond.

Mr. Smith: Did you hear that? The Speaker has the same problem.

Mr. Speaker: Will the members let the minister respond, please?

Mr. Riddell: And all for the sake of the Premier signing his name on those cheques. That's just a crime.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex made his point.

Mr. Swart: The minister is no Santa Claus, he's a Scrooge.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being referred to by some of the members opposite as being Scrooge, because it needs somebody to look after taxpayers' money on occasion in that fashion.

3:10 p.m.

On the point of whatever, for those honourable members who were here last week during the ministry's estimates, this subject received a great amount of coverage, along with questions during question period over the last six weeks or so. I would suggest if people look back on the record they will find I have acknowledged that there have been some difficulties. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. There are many reasons why there have been some problems.

Some of them, frankly, are our own, and I have acknowledged that. Some are just because of the client group we are dealing with, and the base lists we are dealing with that have a tendency to change on a very regular basis; frankly, daily. The numbers involved as far as the auditor's report is concerned, if the member would make himself aware in case he is not already, referred to the 1980-81 program. In fact, many of the difficulties referred to by the auditor in that program have been overcome,

I would go so far as to acknowledge that overcoming some of the problems from last year caused some new ones. There is no doubt about it. We are overcoming those. By next year, when we have the new capabilities within our new location, there is no doubt whatsoever that we can deal with many of the problems more effectively.

In the meantime, being more specific, if the honourable members want to hear some specific numbers --

Hon. Mr. Davis: How did the member for Owen Sound enjoy his trip to the Gong Show?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He is still on it.

Mr. Speaker, 10,000 cheques were sent out last Friday, and on Thursday and Friday of this week there will be approximately 32,000 additional cheques going out, the bulk of the balance that were in before December 1.

Let me also point out we are still receiving between 1,200 and 1,400 new applications each and every week. Those who expect to send their application today and receive their cheque tomorrow will not receive it. But the bulk of the people -- not all, but the bulk -- will have their cheques before Christmas.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Yesterday and today the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) was asked if he had provided me with advance information re Wintario grants. I am rising at this time to state most emphatically that the minister did not.

Mr. O'Neil: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, possibly the minister might have a statement on that particular matter. He seems to have been looking over my way and rubbing his fingers towards me as if he is going to try to fix me, so maybe we should hear his comments on this particular matter and then I will have a chance to say a word after he is finished.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has nothing more to say than he said yesterday.

An hon. member: Oh yes he has.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that tomorrow at two o'clock I will be making my statement and the members will have the information.

Mr. Eakins: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated in the House yesterday that he himself did not know because it was in the computer. Can he tell us how the member for Renfrew South had printed last week in the paper, the Eganville Leader, I believe --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege pertains to the government publication put out under the name of Background by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, at public expense, of course. It lists numbers of bills that have been before the House, most of them government bills. In the listing, it states they are government bills and gives the name of the minister. There was a private member's bill listed, Bill 153, and it does not give the name of the member who introduced that bill. I happen to be that member and I was dealing with a very important item.

I would ask that you investigate whether it is not appropriate, when a publication is put out at public expense by the government, that it should give the same rights to the opposition members when bills are mentioned as it gives to the government members, and not directly try to glorify the government.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege which relates indirectly to the first point of privilege raised this afternoon, but only indirectly, it is a new point of privilege: We all know the time of constituency assistants in the last month or so has been almost entirely devoted to administering the government senior citizens' grants program. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to find out whether it is the function of members --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege, nor is it the duty or responsibility of the Speaker to inquire about anything. If you have questions, the proper time to put them is to the minister during question period.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the time --

Mr. Speaker: You very specifically asked me as Speaker. It is not a point of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. Boudria: It is about the constituency offices, for which you are responsible.

Mr. Speaker: You can talk to me about it in the office then.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 189, An Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment on the introduction of this bill and refer my comments to the bill to follow as well, since the same comments apply to both; they are to a large extent interrelated. In a moment, I shall be introducing a bill entitled An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange. Last June, I announced that the Ontario Securities Commission, in co-operation with the Toronto Stock Exchange, had developed legislation that revised the Toronto Stock Exchange Act and incorporated the Toronto Futures Exchange Act.

3:20 p.m.

These two draft bills were then tabled here to give my honourable colleagues an opportunity to comment on the contents before the bills were finalized and presented to the House for introduction. We felt it was important to circulate these bills widely to allow as much participation and analysis as possible by all the interested parties.

To that end, the bills were also circulated this summer by the Ontario Securities Commission. They published the bills in their weekly bulletin and invited comments from lawyers and others who are specialists in the securities field.

Having had the benefit of this wide circulation, I am now pleased to introduce for first reading the Toronto Stock Exchange Act 1981 and the Toronto Futures Exchange Act 1981. As the House will recall, the Toronto Stock Exchange Act is intended to replace an act passed by the Legislature in 1968.

Since the original Toronto Stock Exchange Act came into force, there have been many developments in corporate and securities legislation which were not reflected in the act. I do not hesitate to say that the original act needs updating and I am confident the bill before the House today will help bring the act in step with the needs and realities of the 1980s.

The bill for the Toronto Futures Exchange Act that I will introduce in a moment creates a commodities futures exchange pursuant to statutory provisions similar to the Toronto Stock Exchange Act 1981. The board of governors of the Toronto futures exchange will consist of 11 members; five will be elected by members of the futures exchange, three will be elected by the TSE, two will be public directors and one will be president.

Under the new act, the board of governors will have the authority to pass bylaws and will have the power to discipline its members or to delegate its disciplinary power to a committee established by the board. The act provides that the futures exchange may hold property without the limitations contained in the Corporations Act, and will allow meetings of the board and its committees to be held by conference telephone, electronic or other communication facilities.

The act also confirms that the futures exchange will be subject to the control of the Ontario Securities Commission and provisions of the Commodity Futures Act, 1978.

TORONTO FUTURES EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 190, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange.

Motion agreed to.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wonder if I might rise on a point of clarification: In question period, a question was posed to me by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) concerning the date on which certain information was brought to the attention of the Provincial Auditor. I gave the date of October 19, 1981, which was what I thought it was at the time. I have since had the information corrected or reverified. In fact, that is the wrong date. The date should probably have been about a year and a quarter earlier.

The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), who saw that the information was brought to the attention of the Provincial Auditor, did so in mid-1980. That would put it back somewhere around the beginning of summer 1980, when it was first brought to the attention of the Provincial Auditor on the basis of information that had been brought to the attention of the minister at the time, the member for Scarborough Centre. I correct the record to that effect.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 262 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, December 11).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved second reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is to permit the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to continue to operate the existing two pools for the distribution proceeds from milk sales now that all milk is required to meet one quality standard. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board and my ministry have been working with producers towards the one quality standard of milk for several years. The first major step in this direction was completion of can delivery to bulk delivery in 1977.

Next, the same standards for bacterial content were fixed in February 1980. Penalty levels were equalized in September 1980. Finally, premise requirements were standardized September 1, 1981. The advantages of a one-quality system are twofold. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board may proceed to rationalize its transportation system as it is no longer necessary to segregate milk supplies to industrial plants. This will effect savings in transportation costs for producers. The quality of milk products will be improved as a result of the higher quality of milk used in their manufacture.

The changeover to a one-quality standard makes it necessary to amend the basis on which the Ontario Milk Marketing Board conducts its pool for distribution proceeds to producers. The basis for distribution was set out in my statement when we introduced this bill on October 13, 1981. In effect, the board will continue to take into account the amount and kind of quota held by a producer and the sales for the board of the various classes of milk. This amendment was requested by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to enable it to carry on with the twofold system that has been in place for a number of years.

The other changes made by the bill are complementary to the main purpose of the bill.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, we are definitely going to support this bill. The real purpose is to reduce transportation costs now that quality standards have been finalized and all farmers must comply with the same quality milk, the same standards. There is really no reason now why we have to have one truck to pick up industrial milk and another truck to pick up fluid milk. In order to reduce those transportation costs we are able now, through this amendment, to have one truck pick up the milk, whether it be quota one milk or quota two milk, en route to the plant.

I guess the legal people of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board felt there had to be some clarification within the bill as to how producers were going to be paid for the milk, now that the milk would be picked up by the same truck. That is really what this amendment is all about.

As I was going through the two bills, I noticed that section 20(37) of the old bill states, "providing for the establishment and the manner of payment of price differentials for milk fat in milk or any class thereof." That has been changed now to, "providing for the establishment and the manner of payment of price differentials in relation to the content of milk or any class thereof."

Are milk producers still paid on the basis of milk fat, or was the reason this change was incorporated because down the road we are perhaps looking at some other means of paying producers, rather than on the milk fat basis?

I am just wondering why that change has been made, why has the "milk fat" been taken out and "contents" put in its place? I know there has been some thought of paying producers on the basis of, how did they word it? It was not "proteins, not fat" --

Mr. Watson: Solids, not fat.

Mr. Riddell: "Solids, not fat," that is right. Thank you. Is that preparing the way for this kind of payment to be made? Is that the reason we see the change being made in this bill in this connection?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I might answer the honourable member --

Mr. Stokes: Just a minute.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill. It represents, in general terms, an updating and a rationalization of the procedures by which the board has been operating because of changes that have taken place in the industry.

3:30 p.m.

It saves money and, hopefully, that will increase the returns to the producer. It was sought by the milk marketing board. As far as I know, it is supported by the producers and I know of no other interested body which has voiced any objection. Without going into any further detail, other than the question that has been asked by the member for Huron-Middlesex, I reiterate, we will support it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Huron-Middlesex, I am not aware of those plans. I am aware of what Mr. Watson has referred to, but the main purpose of the bill is that we pay the farmers on the basis of fluid milk and industrial milk. In view of the fact that it was now going to come in one load and we did not know where it would go, the milk marketing board was concerned that it might cause some problems.

Mr. Haggerty: Not the same price though.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, not at the same price. The members all understand that quite well. As far as the question from the member of Huron-Middlesex, I am not aware of any changes. As far as the board and I are concerned, any discussions we have had are still based on the butter fat.

Mr. Riddell: It is just that "milk fat" has been taken out of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, I realize that now.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Walker, moved second reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go into a lengthy opening statement. We have had discussions with the members opposite. My understanding is they will be supporting the bill.

However, I must give notice that there is an amendment to be made which will have to be made in committee of the whole House and I will have the amendments sent over to the members opposite.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker. we did indicate in a discussion with the minister earlier today that we would proceed with this particular bill because a previous bill dealing with caisses populaires and credit unions, which was going to be dealt with in the House in its second stage, was going to be postponed because of representations that have been made from the credit unions.

On that basis we were prepared to agree to that and I believe the minister approached both the opposition parties with that earlier this afternoon.

Very briefly, I am speaking in favour of this bill. It is an administrative change. I should indicate at this time that some of the people who are involved in the legal profession within our caucus will have something to say about this bill.

We see it not just as a convenience to the legal profession, as some might characterize it, but certainly a convenience to those people it is about to serve. We feel it will provide more efficiency and I am assured by my learned friends within the legal profession that it has their approval, even though they feel that in some cases it is going to mean less work for them. Whether that is true or not is another matter.

I will indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know that members from the third party will be speaking, that a couple of speakers from our party will have more detailed comments on this, although we consider it to be essentially a housekeeping type of bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we are supporting this bill, too, and without any amendments, although I notice that the parliamentary assistant to the minister has just supplied me with an amendment that I have not yet had the opportunity to look at and assess. I would like to reserve any opinions on that until I have had the opportunity to do that.

This bill is pursuant to the one that was passed last spring, to make it clear that the Personal Property Security Act did not apply to real property because some rulings had been made in court that cast some doubt on the interpretation of the bill. It had to be redefined, and this bill does redefine it in a more comprehensive manner. As the member for St. Catharines said, it is largely a housekeeping bill to assure that the division between personal property and real property, as intended I would think in the original act, is fully implemented. For that reason, and to eliminate the confusion, we are supporting it.

I notice the act will not apply to mortgages but that it can apply to the income on mortgages; then it goes on to define other aspects more clearly. There certainly is a fine line between the two. As a person who is not learned in the law, I feel that this bill does a better job of drawing that fine line. Subject to any reservations we may have on the amendment that is before us -- I suspect that it may simply be for a further clarification, I do not know -- we in this party are supporting this bill.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments concerning this bill. A number of problems have arisen with the operation of this very interesting field. This bill will help us to eliminate one. I think there are others that must be looked at as well, at this time, or that at least become very visible to us at this time. Perhaps we should continue on with the amendment of the act under the provisions that are before us. We hope this will help to eliminate some of the very difficult problems that have arisen for the practitioners in the legal field when they look into the securities registered under the Personal Property Security Act.

It should be seen that this bill was passed a good number of years ago, and that difficulties arose with the computer programming and very many other things, which postponed its implementation for a long time. I think more particular attention should have been paid to some of these very basic problems that have since arisen and, it appears to some of us who have been taking part in the program under the Personal Property Security Act, should have been dealt with even before the act was properly implemented.

I think, however, that at this time we must congratulate the minister and his assistant for going ahead and trying to eliminate some of these problems. I would suggest that the continued monitoring of this bill is extremely important to eliminate those difficulties that have caused real problems for us. I must also mention that a considerable amount of time was spent in the estimates of the ministry concerning several other problems that have arisen under this program. I hope they will continue to deal with the problems that were pointed out to the minister in the estimates as well.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I might just mention in closing off on this particular part of the reading that the Personal Property Security Act is somewhat in response to the honourable member opposite. We are expecting the complete rewrite, at least in rough draft, by next spring, if all goes well. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to make sure the areas for mistakes are no longer there.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Walker, moved second reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act.

Mr. Mitchell: The rationale behind this bill comes about due to questions raised by some honourable members, who are in the House today, through our ministry and through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Basically, the bill provides that in any conversion of a cooperative, 60 per cent of the membership, not 75 per cent of those present at a meeting and voting, must indicate their approval in writing. I think that is all I need to say at this point.

Mr. Nixon: I am very glad to speak in support of the bill and I congratulate the parliamentary assistant for putting it before the House, because it is a matter of great concern to the cooperative movement right across the province. I want to take a moment to remind the House that farmers' co-operatives go back many years indeed and were the basis upon which farmers decided they could move in their own best interests to do business on a broader scale, both in buying the materials they need for their operation and, in many instances, marketing their own products. Some of these co-operatives have been tremendously successful.

The one that triggered the amendment before us today is known as the Norfolk Co-operative Company Limited. It operates in my constituency and that of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). It has been in existence since before 1920 and now has assets approaching $50 million. Because of the provisions of the original statutes that allowed cooperatives to be established, the shares have a fixed value and had become very widely disseminated.

I am sure there are shares of co-operatives hanging around in old pigeon holes, safes and portfolios, and their owners are not aware they are members of these various co-operatives. Quite often, these shares have been passed on as an inheritance and, unless a farmer is operating in a local community, they are not of obvious value. However, by being a shareholder, farmers can take part in the business of the co operative and they get, and this is the correct use of the phrase, patronage dividends based on the amount of business they do with their own company.

As I said before, some of these co-operatives have been extremely successful, ramifying into all sorts of operations associated with the farming community. Just last night we were debating a bill that will require the distributors of diesel fuel to colour red the fuel upon which tax is not payable. One of the problems is that this same Norfolk co-operative has a large fuel distributing agency, which it claims will require $1 million to convert to this new procedure that the government is imposing on it. I refer to that only to make the point that the co-operatives have become very large businesses indeed.

In the Norfolk area, a certain entrepreneur has had the brilliant idea that, with the acquiescence of a small number of the shareholders, he can convert this particular co-op -- and following that, others -- to an ordinary corporation. The officers of the corporation could then use the assets as they saw fit for the benefit of those more closely associated with the converted corporation. The reason that would be possible is that a meeting of the shareholders duly called can do business with approval by 60 or 75 per cent of those attending the meeting.

This amendment has removed that possibility. It has to do with a specific percentage of all the shareholders, whether they are attending the meeting or not. It still means the cooperative, being in charge of its own destiny, could make whatever changes it decided to make, but it would require a large percentage of the actual shareholders to accomplish this, not just a percentage of those attending a specific meeting.

In my view, it means the amendment will make it impossible to convert a co-operative the way this particular entrepreneur has had in mind and will make impossible the way he has been moving. There is nothing illegal about his actions whatsoever, but I certainly welcome most enthusiastically the amendment which will make that procedure almost impossible.

I raised this in the standing committee on resources development when we were discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on October 15. In response to what I said at that time the minister said:

"Let me answer you this way. Number one, this was brought to my attention a month or six weeks ago; you might even tell me that it was two months ago. Immediately, I sent the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) a letter pointing out the problems. I have asked him to look into it. I am as concerned as you are.

"Mind you, and I say it quite openly, I am not sure that the United Co-operatives of Ontario is not doing a similar thing to what has happened here under the name of United Co-ops. You people think back and look at some of those co-ops that United Co-ops have taken over."

I was a little concerned at the time that he was less than enthusiastic in support of legislation that would protect the co-operatives. It indicated that United Co-ops had undertaken a takeover procedure that was perhaps the same type of procedure -- nothing illegal, but just a bit greedy or extending their own powers a bit.

Many of us from the agricultural communities have a strong commitment to the concept of the co-operative movement. It is particularly successful now and is important when the cost has escalated so rapidly for materials that farmers must have to carry on production. Any way that can be taken, in particular through the co-operative movement, to reduce the cost by buying in bulk and returning at least part of the profits to the shareholders is something we should enthusiastically support.

I am glad both the minister and the parliamentary assistant think so too. I feel confident this amendment will accomplish what we are seeking. The only problem I have, and I do not believe it is a problem at this time, is that the bill before us goes into force when it is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I believe this could be accomplished within the next few days. I see the parliamentary assistant is nodding, and that is good enough for me.

I know there have been some indications in the Simcoe, Delhi, Norwich and Waterford areas, where the co-operative operates, that there is some movement towards the kind of meeting which under the previous rules might be convened legally and might permit control of the co-operative to be lost in the way that has been feared. My own judgement, however, is that such a meeting cannot now be called, and its decisions would be rendered null and void by the bill before us.

3:50 p.m.

I have been concerned about the delay in bringing forward the legislation, but the best information I have is that it is definitely on time. If the minister and the parliamentary assistant are getting other information, I think we could very well send this bill to committee and put a different operative date forward with very little difficulty. I do not think there would be anything wrong at all in making the operative date the date on which the bill was introduced. There would then be no difficulty whatsoever about some meeting being slipped in within the next few days.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I rise to support the bill we have before us. I do that, of course, because it was the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), along with others, who had been pushing for this kind of bill. In fact, he had raised the issue in the House and in various ways had promoted the initiation of this bill.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, come on, Mel; you don't know what you're talking about.

Mr. Swart: I know exactly what I am talking about. The member for York South, along with others, I said, played a major part in initiating and promoting the bill we have before us at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: Surely the aim of this is to protect the co-operatives and not to gather credit for the NDP. You were late on this one. Why don't you face it?

Mr. Swart: In addition, of course, the philosophical views of this party dictate that we should support this bill. There is no question that where the New Democratic Party has formed the government, whether in Saskatchewan or in British Columbia, it has supported co-operatives. In fact, the roots of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the New Democratic Party are in the co-operative movement. Because this bill is to protect the very existence of co-operatives from takeovers by the private sector, we obviously will support this bill from that point of view.

There is no question that there was a real and immediate danger to the Norfolk Co-operative Company and probably a great deal of danger to many of the co-operatives throughout this province, particularly the farmers' co-operatives. if the private company that had been set up to take over this co-operative had been successful, it would just have been one of the dominoes that would probably have fallen to the private sector.

I suspect that in saying this I am underestimating the vigilance of many co-operative members, who likely would have rallied to see that this did not take place. But it is still possible that it could have taken place and that the co-operative could have been taken over by the private sector, perhaps with a very small percentage -- 10 per cent or less -- of the membership of that co-operative, which I understand is in the thousands, actually approving of the takeover.

I suspect the clause that is in the present act was initiated originally to protect the minority and majority interests of the co-operative members. According to that clause, 10 per cent of the membership can initiate a meeting, and at that meeting 75 per cent of the members who are there can pass resolutions and take actions that can normally be taken by the board of directors.

I assume it was put in the original act so that the board of directors could not subvert the will of the majority, or at least could not refuse to deal with the desires even of the minority. Putting that in meant -- and this, I believe, is the first instance of it -- that a minority of members could subvert the board of directors and, perhaps, a majority of the members. I think everyone in this House agrees -- I would be surprised if anybody voted against this bill -- that this is a very desirable move to protect the co-operative movement.

Perhaps when the parliamentary assistant to the minister rises to reply, he might like to make some comments with regard to the other requests that were made by the United Co-operatives of Ontario and the Norfolk Co-operative with regard to the 10 per cent limitation on dividends and interest that may be paid to the members. Also, prices are actually pegged to their par values, which, of course, as he would agree, puts the co-operatives at a very real disadvantage when, at the present time, they can only pay 10 per cent to the members for investments they may wish to make. That hurts the co-operative movement today.

I wonder if there is going to be a bill brought in, or legislation brought forward, or whether the government will in some manner deal with that very real problem facing the co-operative movement because of existing legislation and regulations, I was somewhat surprised that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did not mention that in his comments. Perhaps he has some knowledge that I do not have of what the government intends to do in this regard.

I do realize and recognize that the bill we have before us is to serve a very immediate problem, and that it is necessary. I am sure when the parliamentary assistant gets up he will be giving a commitment relative to the question that was put forward by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and that I put forward, that he expects this will be proclaimed, and will be proclaimed in the very near future, so there will be no delay and he will cut off this private entrepreneur at the pass before he gets into a position where he can do damage. I am sure the parliamentary assistant will be referring to that as well.

We in this party will unanimously support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to indicate my support as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations critic for the Liberal Party. As well, I think the House leader for the Liberal Party has indicated in a very clear manner the need for this particular bill. I commend him for raising this matter at a time when it is becoming an immediate problem. I also endorse his call for having this enacted into law as soon as possible.

I think the key paragraph in the information provided by the ministry is the one that states the net result of the above, that is, that a conversion of a co-operative to a business corporation could be effected by as few as 10 per cent of the members requisitioning a meeting, and an even smaller proportion voting for the conversion at the meeting. To avoid what I would consider to be an abuse -- some may say that is the way the democratic process works; you go out to the meetings and you get to make the decisions -- and because this is such an important decision for a co-operative, I think it is incumbent upon, and wise of, the government to take this action, to provide for 60 per cent of the members of a co-operative to confirm in writing any resolution to convert the cooperative as I have described in the past.

With the rule regarding 75 per cent of those present, in theory we could have a takeover by a very small number of people present at one particular meeting. At other organizations we have seen examples of decisions being made by a very small group, decisions that were not for the benefit of the entire organization but for the benefit of those who decided to go out to a meeting, or who were able to go out to a meeting for a specific purpose. For this reason I feel it is appropriate that we enact this legislation. I hope it can be proclaimed at the very earliest moment.

4 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks. As a former president of a cooperative in my riding, I know how important the co-operative movement is, not only to farmers but to others as well. A lot of urban people are now using a lot of these cooperatives.

It came as quite a surprise to me to learn that it was extremely easy for a group to take over a co-operative. I was approached shortly after problems were being encountered by the Norfolk Co-operative. I happened to attend a meeting called by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I do not recall seeing the member for Welland-Thorold at that meeting. I could be wrong, but I do not believe he was there. I do believe the member for York South was at that meeting representing the third party.

It was at that meeting that we thoroughly discussed what we felt should be done to strengthen the legislation and to prevent the type of thing from happening that appeared would happen if the minister had not acted, and acted quickly. We certainly do appreciate the efforts of the minister and his parliamentary assistant in getting that bill in as quickly as they did. It was not very many weeks ago when we had that meeting in the minister's office.

I was at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention two weeks ago. I do not know whether he is a director of the Norfolk Cooperative, but a very highly regarded farmer in the area, a chap by the name of David Erwin, approached me and expressed the urgency and the immediacy of this amendment.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: A good Tory, too.

Mr. Nixon: That's all right. You used to be a good Liberal.

Mr. Riddell: I think maybe the member is right, although I am not too sure he is all that strong a Tory, or that he always votes Tory. I went to school with the chap. He continues to heap praise on the official opposition party for the excellent work they are doing in this Legislature --

Mr. Nixon: He thinks we have a good agriculture critic.

Mr. Riddell: He thinks he has a good member too.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Nobody will disagree with that.

Mr. Riddell: However, that is digressing.

I was surprised to learn this group would endeavour to call a meeting someplace quite remote from where the co-operative is at present located, even if it meant taking a group of members into northern Ontario to hold a meeting, so it could then say it had 75 per cent of those at the meeting in favour of turning the co-operative over to another type of organization or into a corporation. I never dreamed this could ever happen, but it did, and we now have an amendment to stop that.

We do render our wholehearted support. We do not want groups coming in and seeing an opportunity and trying to capitalize on it by taking over our good co-operatives, which have worked so hard in the best interests of farmers and a lot of the urban people as well.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, first in reply to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk: My understanding is that there is not sufficient time for the organization to call a meeting. They require 21 days' notice. This bill will most certainly be completed by then.

With regard to the questions raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, I know the co-op has been in touch with the minister with regard to proposals on the possibility of removing the ceiling on dividends and of permitting share values to escalate. I would like to take his question and get back to the members as soon as I can and let them know exactly what the interaction has been.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I have the permission of the House to move to the front row when dealing with the committee of the whole House?

Deputy Speaker: Right.

House in committee of the whole.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mitchell, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Walker, moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Sections 1 and 2 do not apply so as to affect rights that have been determined by a judgement or order of any court, given or made prior to the day this section comes into force."

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the bill as it stands has retroactive effects. However, there are two exceptions that purport not to affect the rights acquired by any person from a judgement or order of any court prior to the day the bill comes into force. It also would exempt from retroactive effect any litigation commenced on or before September 1, 1981.

The ministry has received representations to the effect that the exemption provisions are too broad, and that the exemption should only be afforded to orders and judgements, not to litigation proceedings. Generally speaking, retroactive legislation is often objectionable on the basis that it is unfair in many circumstances. Persons govern their activities by rules; to change the rules after they have been relied upon is frequently offensive to our sense of justice. This is particularly true of penal and taxing statutes.

In some circumstances, however, it is unfair not to make legislation retroactive. This is true when many persons have governed their activities by what was generally assumed to be the law, and these assumptions proved to be incorrect.

In the situation under consideration it had been generally assumed there was no need to register certain documents in both the registry system and in the personal property security registration system. Therefore in our view the retroactive effect of the legislation should be as broad as possible. The proposed amendment accomplishes that objective.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the minister if he would comment a little further on that when he states it will be as broad as possible. My reading of the amendment limits it somewhat to what the original section did, in that then it would have applied to any action that had been started before September 1. 1981. Now it applies only to where a judgement has been made. I am not necessarily disputing the wisdom of this, but I would like to know a little more about the reason for the change. It is a fairly substantial change although I suspect it is a legalistic change and done for that reason. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would explain it a little further.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is my understanding. I must admit I was faced with this amendment at the last moment. The removal of this date affects only judgements or orders. That is the only area it affects, as I understand it. I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Chairman: Does that clarify the issue for the member from Welland-Thorold? We will give you a moment to digest the comments of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Swart: I'm really having some difficulty in understanding this, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me the original section 3 reads: "Sections 1 and 2 do not apply so as to affect the rights acquired by any persons from a judgement or order of any court prior to the day this act comes into force," which is also the new amendment. But then the old section goes on, "or affect the outcome of any litigation commenced on or before the first day of September, 1981."

My understanding is that might be continuing litigation at this time and on into the future. Unless I am incorrect, this is at variance with what the parliamentary assistant just told us. Perhaps he would explain again why that last phrase was dropped, so that now it really only affects where an order or judgement has been made.

Mr. Mitchell: I am having our legal people provide me with a bit more backup information. But I quite honestly admit to the honourable member I was provided with this only within the last 20 or 25 minutes. Perhaps I should have had a copy of the statement prepared for you as well -- for that I apologize. But in there we acknowledge that retroactive legislation is often objectionable. But in this situation we felt that date should not be there. Section 7(2) makes the act retroactive. Section 3 limits the period of retroactivity. We dropped the phrase "reduce the limitation of the retroactivity" and that is given to me as a legal opinion.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the proposed amendment? The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has moved an amendment to section 3 of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act.

All in favour of the amendment please say "aye."

All those against please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3 of the bill, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill 163, as amended, reported.

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

BARRIE-INNISFIL ANNEXATION ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 156, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Innisfil.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced for first reading on October 29 it was pointed out further consideration of the bill would be deferred until the agreement between the negotiators from the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil had been ratified by those councils.

I am pleased to report to the House that ratification took place on November 25. Public meetings were held to acquaint the residents of the municipalities with the recommendations and hear their input before councils made their final decisions.

In the Barrie-Innisfil case, we have the second example of intermunicipal negotiations conducted under provincial auspices which have led to solutions of long-standing and complex boundary disputes. The success in the Barrie area strengthens our faith in the new process which was first successfully tested in a pilot project in the Brant-Brantford area.

This bill annexes 8,600 acres of the township of Innisfil to the city of Barrie on January 1, 1982. An additional 700 acres will be annexed to the city on January 1, 1987.

The bill also provides for the creation of an area on the southerly and easterly edges of the new city boundary which will be restricted to agriculture and mineral resource extraction and related uses compatible with agriculture and mineral resource extraction. By designating this area in the manner described, the municipalities hope to curtail urban sprawl and break the cycle of fringe development just beyond the city boundary which leads to further annexation, further fringe development and so on in a vicious circle.

I would note this area is already agricultural and therefore there is no down-zoning in this area. However, to be fair, the area will be frozen and some of the rights of property owners will be taken away from them.

Another feature of this legislation provides for a moratorium on contested annexations for the next 30 years, except for the area within the zone restricted to agriculture and mineral resource extraction west of the line between lots 11 and 12. The city may apply to annex in this area after 15 years.

The legislation also covers zoning in the area next to the city on January 1, 1982. The township zoning bylaw is deemed to be in effect in the annexed area until the new zoning bylaw is brought forward by the city of Barrie. The bill provides for a mechanism to phase in the tax changes for township residents who become part of the city on the effective date of annexation. Moreover, it provides lower rates of taxation for areas that do not receive the full city services.

The legislation provides a mechanism to redivide the city into wards which takes into consideration the annexed lands. The bill also validates the agreement between the city and the township on numerous matters which were part of the package on boundary related issues which were resolved by the negotiations.

At the specific request of the council of the township of Innisfil, this bill includes a provision that the Public Utility Commission will be dissolved on January 1, 1982, and its assets and liabilities vested in the township. I would point out the Public Utility Commission of Innisfil deals with the water.

I would like to commend this bill to the House because I think it really forms a new beginning in intermunicipal relationships between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil.

I and the opposition critics received a letter from a lawyer for one property owner who will be in what is called the frozen area, indicating they wished to have their client's contention that it should not be frozen, heard before a committee of this Legislature. For that reason, after second reading I would ask this matter be referred to the standing committee on general government for a hearing which, if the House concurs, will be scheduled for next Wednesday morning. I hope the bill will be back the day after for further consideration.

4:20 p.m.

There are also four amendments I distributed to the opposition critics only a few minutes ago because I just received them myself from Legislative counsel. They are basically for clarification. These amendments will be dealt with next week at the committee, but I will just highlight the purpose of the amendments.

The amendment to section 4 not only makes it plain that in the frozen area the township of Innisfil must have an official plan in accordance with the agreement but also removes from any property owner the right to appeal a lack of change in official plan to the minister. So the freeze applies not only to the township but to property owners as well.

We are adding in section 6 a "notwithstanding" clause simply because there may be matters that are implicit in the agreement but not explicit in the agreement -- such things as service areas and so on. So the minister can issue an order for levies and the imposition of special tax rates where the agreement is not totally clear. If the township and the city wish to implement something in the agreement that is not specific in the agreement the minister may do it by order.

At the request of the township of Innisfil we are adding a clarification to section 9 which simply says the city and township are authorized to implement the agreement. The township had originally asked that the total agreement be put in legislation, but we felt, and they agreed, that the agreement is not in a form that would be appropriate as part of the bill, so we are simply making this addition at their request.

I indicated these amendments are not for discussion today. I simply wanted to give a brief explanation so the opposition members would understand why they are here. We will discuss them more fully when we are in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would commend this bill to the House for second reading, and, as I indicated, when it receives second reading I will refer it to the standing committee on general government.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate at this point that our party will be supporting the bill with certain reservations. I am glad the parliamentary assistant has indicated the bill will be going to committee because of the letters he and I and the critic for the New Democratic Party have received on this matter.

As the parliamentary assistant has indicated, this is a very important piece of legislation as far as Barrie and Innisfil are concerned. As Mr. Rusty Russell has indicated in the Municipal World of September 1981, there was a real shootout in Barrie and Innisfil a few years ago when the two municipalities could not agree that Innisfil should almost be emasculated and much of its area taken away by the city of Barrie. The city at that time wanted several thousand acres, and through this agreement they were going to end up with somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,600 acres, I think, over a period of six years.

The interesting thing about these negotiations is that they follow hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board and appeals to various courts that took several years and cost in the neighbourhood of $1 million and, I am told, probably $150,000 above that $1 million. So it is not $1 million more or less; it is $1 million and more. We find this is no way to deal with annexation problems in this province or anyplace, because it just means those municipalities which have a lot of financial resources at hand are probably able to win out in the final analysis as opposed to those that do not.

The interesting thing about the hearings that went on in Barrie was the action of the then Treasurer of Ontario, who decided that maybe the people at the Ontario Municipal Board and the lawyers there were not very clear on what government policy was. At that time it was projected that the --

I see the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) is raising his head. He is very interested in what the government policy was at that time. I suppose that as the member for Sarnia he would be very interested, because they are going to have that kind of problem in Sarnia -- or they do have.

Mr. Nixon: It goes back to when he was a Liberal.

Mr. Brandt: It's been a long time, though.

Mr. Nixon: Not so long.

Mr. Epp: Don't apologize too much; just put it in writing.

It was interesting with this shootout they had down there, as Mr. Russell explains it. Since they were not very clear on what the population should be and the projection was they would have about 75,000 in Barrie over the next 20 or 30 years, the minister thought he better make it clear at that time and he decided to send a letter saying it is government policy that it should be 125,000 people.

That more or less underlines the comment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) made recently. We have these little tidbits that always come out in Municipal World. As the member for Welland-Thorold mentioned today, the gems and the jewels always come out on behalf of government members but opposition members are rarely, if ever, mentioned when they come out with these things.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mentioned in his statement to Background, which comes out to members on a weekly basis, that after giving $24 million to the area, it will help to make this entire area one of the major growth centres of the province." I suppose that is really what they want to be -- one of the major growth centres. Bigness is better and it is growth that counts, nothing else. Irrespective of this, the Treasurer at that time sent this letter and caused a lot of consternation at the hearings of the Ontario Municipal Board.

It was appealed to various courts. We are told it first went to the divisional court where three high court judges heard the case. Then we are told it went to the divisional court for a second hearing before another three judges and then to the appeal court before five judges. There was another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada before seven Supreme Court judges. A total of 18 judges heard this case and ruled on it.

In the final analysis, I suppose if there was a winner -- and there are real questions as to who won and who lost -- it was Innisfil to some degree because Barrie did not get what they wanted. As a result, we are here today with this piece of legislation trying to tie some loose ends together and support an agreement between two municipalities.

This piece of legislation falls on the heels of another that came before the House last week. It has to do with boundary disputes and has had second reading. I suppose it will go to committee some time next week.

Our concerns have to do with the environmental effects on Lake Simcoe and that area. As we have indicated there is going to be an increase in population. Whether it will measure up to the expectations, hopes and aspirations of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I am not sure.

Nevertheless, we are told that Alcona Beach is going to have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 people. If that is the case, there will be a considerable amount of phosphorus pollution in the area. If they do grow to 15,000 people in that town there will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 metric tons of phosphorus pollution in the lake and this will certainly hamper the preservation of Lake Simcoe as a recreational area and for recreational fishing and as an industry.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the minister, might give us a clear indication today of what effect that will have on this very important lake where thousands of people holiday every summer. I would not call it the playground of the western world, but it is certainly an important area from the standpoint of people spending their summer vacations there.

4:30 p.m.

The parliamentary assistant might also indicate what kind of result spending $28 million on sewerage facilities is going to have on the area generally. If they are going to spend this kind of money, does that mean they are going to lessen the amount of pollution there now, keep it at the present level or just retard pollution growth?

I am pleased this piece of legislation is going to go before the committee because of the request by the Coventry Group which sent all of us a letter. They are concerned because of the 266 acres, known as part of lots 16, 17 and 18 in concession 10 in the township of Innisfil, which would be affected. I am sure they will be able to make a very fine presentation before the committee.

When this matter goes before general government, I hope neither the parliamentary assistant nor the members of that committee have their minds frozen with respect to what should be done. I hope they keep their minds open at least until the time the group has an opportunity to make their presentation. If their minds are already made up that they are going to turn this down, then going before the committee is a charade. We should neither waste the time of the committee and its members nor the time and money of the group in making its presentation.

Therefore I hope the parliamentary assistant could indicate clearly they would listen with an open mind to this presentation so that these people can have a fair hearing before the general government committee next Wednesday morning.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, as we all know, is the culmination of a very long and sometimes acrimonious process of negotiation between the municipalities affected. The fact that the township of Innisfil is asking for an amendment which calls for "the implementation of the agreement in accordance with its terms" indicates that some suspicion still lingers that the agreement may not be lived up to.

It is unfortunate the suspicion still exists, but I can understand it after the long negotiation period. In this agreement there is a very substantial transfer of land from the township of Innisfil to the city of Barrie.

Final negotiations may have been assisted by the fact that the province was prepared to make fairly substantial grants to the city of Barrie in order to enable them to handle the new land, and to see that development was planned and controlled. I certainly hope the city of Barrie will take its responsibility for controlling this land very seriously and see that it is developed in the interests of all area residents, not just the few who may wish to develop residential or industrial complexes in their own interests.

The job of the municipality is to see that all interests in land use are considered and that they all get some of their concerns taken into account. It is not always possible to please everybody, but I think the city of Barrie has a very important responsibility to see that the land it is annexing is developed in the interests of all residents.

This settlement is regarded as a pilot project in the negotiation process for settling boundary disputes and annexations. We are now in the process of enshrining that kind of process into the new Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act. I hope it will result in speedier disposition of annexation and boundary disputes, I hope it will result in less costly means of achieving boundary changes and less litigation, and I hope the negotiations will be friendlier than they have been in the past.

Until we see the working of the new Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, we will not know, but I think this party is prepared to accept this settlement as the best possible solution at this time of the Barrie-Innisfil boundary situation.

I welcome the parliamentary assistant's willingness to have this bill referred to a standing committee to permit the appearance of one party, who has indicated to us he wishes to be heard regarding freezing of his particular land under the agreement. In a democratic society, when an individual's personal situation is affected in a substantial way, as it appears in this case, it behooves us to give him his day in court, as it were, and to hear his objections and how he considers he will be adversely affected, if that is his contention.

At any rate, this party has asked to be heard, and I think we should be willing to grant that opportunity to him and to any other parties who feel, similarly, they are seriously disadvantaged by the agreement. So we will support sending this out to standing committee.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support this piece of legislation. As you may well be aware, the township of Innisfil and the city of Barrie are in the riding of Simcoe Centre, and I have been familiar with this matter now for a considerable number of years. Indeed, it has been an issue in two provincial elections, the most recent one and the one before that, with numerous opposition members and their leaders paying respect to the area as a result, primarily, of the annexation issue.

I also bring to your attention that as a result of this particular issue in the area, many other municipalities have been watching and waiting to see the result of this particular issue and dispute. They have also been awaiting the particular piece of legislation we spoke on the other evening, Bill 147, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

Naturally, as a result of the Barrie-Innisfil-Vespra dispute, that piece of legislation came about and this settlement came about. The member for the riding with many names, Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, will say that the situation of the township of Brant and Brant county was also a pilot project, and indeed it was as a result of that situation that Barrie, Innisfil and Vespra arrived at this agreement.

4:40 p.m.

There is a great deal of history, and I could probably use up the remainder of the evening discussing the history and the background, and the situation that has been created as a result of this dispute or issue.

I might add a few facts. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing came about after many years. I go back to about 1970 when the matter was first discussed as a result of the Toronto-centred region plan, which had the feature of satellite cities, with Metropolitan Toronto being the core of those satellite cities. Barrie and the area around it were designated as growth centres. This was followed by the Simcoe-Georgian task force, which was layered on that Toronto-centred region plan, with that as the background.

Then discussions involved numerous ministers interested in this matter and numerous municipal councillors who were trying to discuss the matter. They did discuss it in regard to trying to resolve the expansion of an urban area. Then we have that flowing into the final culmination. Because they could not settle it amicably by discussion and could not, as has been done previously, amalgamate certain areas or restructure areas or create new regional governments, they went the litigious route through the Ontario Municipal Board.

That OMB hearing took 49 days, with 32 lawyers there representing 25 clients, including five local municipalities in the area, being the townships of Innisfil, Vespra and Oro, the city of Barrie and the county of Simcoe. All of these participated in that very lengthy hearing which resulted in court proceedings right up to the ultimate court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. Lawyers being what they are, the arguments were lengthy. Some were very technical; they had nothing to do with the merit of the problem but were very technical arguments that got the participants to arrive at the Supreme Court of Canada with these arguments and produced the resulting judgements of them.

All of this amounted to numerous years of wondering what was going to take place, numerous years of delay, numerous years of stagnant growth for the area, numerous years of exceedingly large costs to the participating municipalities in legal fees, planning fees and lost opportunities. One must not disregard those lost opportunities to those municipalities, which were really frozen, or did not know which direction they could go because of these boundaries that were not resolved.

So we have that long history of indecision, bickering and dispute, a problem that gave rise to this piece of legislation. As the member for Waterloo North said, it was not without interference from the provincial level, because I sat with many of the ministers involved in this, and many municipal councillors, who tried to bring about a settlement over the period of time.

Indeed, each one had a different viewpoint as to who participated and how they participated. Although it may be a contrary position, being a government member I think Darcy McKeough's position when he was the minister involved in this was only to explain to the Ontario Municipal Board that it should provide for a community, as was set out in the task force whose report was adopted by the local municipalities and the province -- a city or a community of some 125,000 to be created by a particular year.

There is no doubt those figures are subject to question. They may not be accurate, they may not be lived up to, but that was what the planning was to be for, a larger urban community.

One can ask, who should we plan for? Should we plan for urban communities or rural communities, and who will best plan for this land, depending on whose jurisdiction it comes within? I would submit that neither council has a monopoly on altruism. Neither council has that total altruistic approach that it will best plan for this community and its residents. Surely if it becomes part of an urban area, those municipally elected officials will plan best for those people within that urban community, as will the rural community plan for its residents.

So one cannot say that because there has been a movement of the boundary there will be a change. Speaking about that movement of the boundary, one has to bear in mind that over a period of time the different municipalities had different ideas. There was a time when Innisfil was willingly going to give considerable acreage to the municipality of Barrie. There was a time in its proceedings when Barrie wanted considerably more than that acreage. We have now come down to a saw-off position where the participants have resolved that a certain amount of acreage will be sufficient. Anybody can use pros and cons as to what might be the most exact acreage, but I do not know any planners who are that perfect today in this field.

One has to say this is a reasonable settlement. It is a compromise. It is a settlement to which all the parties have agreed. I am sure there will be those who will say it is not the best. There will be some who will look back on it in history and say they should have done other things and should have proceeded in a different manner and method. Those people will be entitled to their opinions when that time comes. Only time will decide the degree of perfection of this piece of legislation.

I must draw attention to the fact that these negotiators, having seen the history, the cost and the lost opportunities, resolved they would try to work out a solution. I must pay credit to the mayor of the city of Barrie, Ross Archer, and his team of negotiators, such as Alex Arthur, Del Cole, Dorian Parker and Ed Thompson, who worked out a settlement on behalf of the city of Barrie with Reeve Grant Andrade, Deputy Reeve Katy Jans, Rick Deveaux, Laurie Franks and Angus J. MacDonell on behalf of the township of Innisfil.

These people, along with the provincial people who played a great part in this, as well as the municipal employees who advised them, all deserve a great vote of credit and thanks for resolving this issue and settling the long-drawn-out and, in some respects, bickering dispute. All of it was done while they kept in mind at all times the best interests of the people they represented.

This agreement settles more than could have been expected through the normal route of Ontario Municipal Board hearings. It sets out far greater detail and preserves certain things for the different residents of the two municipalities. It gives them a greater benefit than they could ever have arrived at with a settlement or a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The member for Waterloo North had some questions for the parliamentary assistant on this matter, one being population trends in the township of Innisfil for the Alcona Beach area. Those population trends are designated in the official plan of the township of Innisfil. They are population trends they hope to reach. With the official plan that now has received approval, they will be able to plan in all the areas for the population trend, if it proves to be accurate and eventually exists. They will be able to plan such things as the environment, roads, sewers and other features.

The Ministry of the Environment, in close relationship to this settlement, has been looking at the township of Innisfil because Innisfil has grown in a strange way. It is on Lake Simcoe. There are numerous cottages that have been converted into permanent dwellings. The Ministry of the Environment, recognizing the environmental hazards as a consequence of this type of development, I believe has set aside $28 million for a sewage and water treatment process for that area.

If that program goes through, it will be connected in the future with the smaller communities situated in the township of Innisfil. The member for Waterloo North mentioned one of them, Alcona. All of those features are provided for in the provision for funds for the environmental features of the township of Innisfil.

Regarding the Coventry Group, which wants to make a submission to the general government committee, one has to look at it as another land owner. As a result of the decision in which the boundary line has been determined and some areas have been frozen, there will be some people who will be disappointed and no doubt there will be some who will be elated.

4:50 p.m.

The area is a mixed area of rural and residential land. Some areas of it have been in a speculative form over numerous years, leading up to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Subsequent to that Ontario Municipal Board hearing, there have been extremely large prices paid for the existing farm land, based on the speculative value of whether it would or would not be within the urban annexation area, or outside the annexation area.

This is another situation where a developer has land that is now excluded from the urban area of the city of Barrie. It could just as easily have been within, had the Ontario Municipal Board drawn the line differently. If they have to take into consideration the ownership of the lands by speculative individuals or by the different developers, it makes for a very difficult task for proper planning. Most planners would agree that one cannot take the ownership of the land into consideration, although naturally many of the people at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing were saying "include me" or "exclude that one" because of their personal interest in this regard.

One would have to look at the submissions made by the Coventry Group when they are made. One cannot just drop heavily on them because they have bought land for speculative purposes and now are outside, since there will be many in that particular category. They had an opportunity to make their position known at the Ontario Municipal Board. A line was drawn at the Ontario Municipal Board; now that line is reduced in acreage and some of those people who bought land previously, on a basis of speculation for urban development, are now outside it.

One could continue this hearing before committees with people coming in at a future time. One must also say that this agreement provides for a situation where the two municipalities, if they so desire or agree, can rezone one of those frozen areas or one of the areas in between the two municipalities, and make further decisions on that property, which is a feature they would not be able to do if it had gone the Ontario Municipal Board route.

This legislation provides for all of that. My only regret is that the other municipality, the township of Vespra, is not included in this legislation and the matter has not been dealt with in one package. Possibly when Vespra sees this going through, and sees the results of this particular legislation, it will quickly make its decision.

I must say there will not be total satisfaction with this particular agreement by all individuals, both inside and outside the municipality -- for example, the residential area coming into the urban. One has to say that the greatest percentage of the people of the area would like this matter settled and concluded by the route we are going, in order to get the matter completed and get on with the future of that particular area.

I, for one, totally support the legislation and the efforts that have gone into it by all participants to bring about a conclusion to this long, historical pattern of dispute about the issue. Most people will be pleased to have it behind them and the future in front of them. I again compliment the minister and those involved in it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the bill is before the House and that it constitutes an agreement among the formerly warring parties in the Barrie area.

I regret very much that it could not have come forward three or four years ago. My regrets are probably not typical, because the thing that burns me up more than anything else about this instance, and others like it, is the fact --

Mr. G. W. Taylor: There were 32 lawyers.

Mr. Nixon: That is right. It is the fact that all these Toronto lawyers have been driven up to Barrie in their Rolls-Royces day after day, collecting their $120 an hour plus expenses plus food plus booze, plus sitting around with their feet up for all these weeks and months and collecting the untold hundreds of thousands of dollars, representing these innocent municipalities.

There is some kind of disease that municipalities get when they get into a war with each other. They figure that if they cannot get somebody from McCarthy and McCarthy then they move to Borden and Elliot, and, of course, there is a little inner group that figures it has got to have somebody from Goodman and Goodman, not necessarily to the exclusion of the others but usually in addition to the others.

They have absolutely no concern for the taxpayers' money that is firehosed into these treasuries in the law offices in the bank towers in downtown Toronto. It is an absolute disgrace the amount of public money that has been channelled into legal fees over this particular little contretemps alone. I really believe it has been the legal fees that have frightened these people into sitting down and making the kind of agreement they might have arrived at years ago.

I can never understand why they do not retain some good, healthy young lawyer from down the street in Barrie or Orillia. Why they think they have got to get all these pumped-up lawyers from Toronto is something I really cannot understand. You have heard them in action. All their phrases seem to be replaceable; they glare at each other before the hearing officers, and they go out slapping their thighs and giggling to each other because they have once again pulled the wool over the eyes of these people who are spending taxpayers' money.

Years ago somebody calculated that at least $1 million was spent in this ridiculous local fight at Barrie-Innisfil.

Mr. Haggerty: They said $2 million.

Mr. Nixon: Well, $2 million. The honourable member for the area, who himself is a lawyer -- Were you representing one side or the other?

Mr. G. W. Taylor: I didn't get a penny.

Mr. Nixon: Well, that is it; that is the point, you see? If they had had the good sense to retain some local fellow, he probably would have made enough money so that he would not have had to go into politics in the first place, a place where he is going absolutely nowhere. But that is another story.

I just felt I had to get part of that off my chest, because it is not just three or four of these firms that go up. By the time every little municipality that might have some residual interest in the final solution, so-called, is involved, every one of them has got to have a lawyer who is driven up from Toronto by chauffeur every day.

And the fees they charge are just outlandish -- "criminal" is probably the best word to use. We do not have a law that makes it illegal for these fees to be charged and for the innocent lambs to be led to the slaughter absolutely in herds. But it is something I resent very much, and I believe the taxpayers are absolutely sick and tired of it.

There are a couple of other matters in this whole solution. In describing it, the honourable member, the lawyer -- no, the insurance agent from downtown Toronto, from Wilson Heights -- indicated that the farm land was being frozen and that this was okay because, since it was farm land, it could not be down-zoned any further. You have just no idea how irritating this is to the owners of the farm land.

It is almost enough for them to get Eddie Goodman himself to come and represent them at some footling committee meeting, which is going to be held next Wednesday and which is going to do little or nothing for the good of those land owners who, according to the parliamentary assistant, are losing none of their rights. Yet we all know that when you enshrine the fact that they have no rights for development in a statute like this, it is very hard to take.

Over the years they have looked around at those people who seem to have maybe a little more initiative or a little better lawyer -- which is the other side of the coin I have been talking about -- who will get their severances and the shopping centres on one corner of their farm, or there will be some preferment so that the value of the land up there has gone up tremendously. There is all the land around Kempenfelt Bay that has not been bought by the government for its staff training facilities.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Georgian College.

5 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: No. I am talking about the emporium operated by the government of Ontario to train its staff, the one that is referred to in detail by the Provincial Auditor, who was indicating that there is a tremendous inadequacy in the planning up there.

By this special statute we simply sign, seal and deliver, and land owners in the area, particularly farmers, resent the fact that their land is worthless except for growing crops. While all of us, as farmers, place our hands on our chests and say we have to preserve farm land, our neighbours are selling land at astronomical profits. When some gentle authority 60 miles away decides, by virtue of a bill that runs through the Legislature, that our rights are forever disowned and inoperative, it is difficult to take.

There are still complaints in the Brantford area because of that. While it was all farm land, development rights were inherent and intrinsic in some of those areas which were snuffed out by the passage of that statute. We had a similar kind of committee meeting to the one that the parliamentary assistant is planning for next Wednesday, which I gather is not tomorrow.

Mr. Rotenberg: A week Wednesday.

Mr. Nixon: Well, tomorrow is the next Wednesday, but I know what he means.

At that time, we tried to be sure that individual land owners would at least be considered on an individual basis and that there would not be some blooming map around where some planner, also overpaid, would have green ink drawn around large areas of land. That property would be put in limbo forever and people could grow onions, celery, wheat weeds, or whatever they grow there, without any thought of development.

Through all these years there have been the inadequacies of the planning process, both locally in the Barrie area as well as in the Brantford area. Under the direction of the government of Ontario and its chief planner, the Minister of Economics as he then was, all sorts of irrational plans and developments were allowed to go forward which have made it necessary that this sort of legislation come into being.

There are instances right across Ontario where huge malls operating on a septic tank have been allowed to be built just outside city boundaries. The reasons were obvious at the time but are extremely dislocating from a planning basis. We have seen this being allowed by the Legislature, by the government of the day, which did not seem to have the vision -- something we would all agree is so essential in modern politics -- to see that the development was in the best interests of the whole community, and that the rural area would be maintained for agricultural purposes and that the urban area would grow in an appropriate way.

I felt for a long time, particularly in the days when Darcy McKeough was the Treasurer, Minister of Economics and, by his own designation, chief planner of the province, that we dealt inadequately with this important and ongoing responsibility. All one had to do was go down to Chatham to see how fouled up planning procedures were when the major shopping centre for the area was built -- one that I suppose set the pattern for that kind of dislocating development across the province. A very large shopping centre was built in the township, just outside the town of Chatham, with the benign chief planner of the universe looking on as he drove by in his limousine two or three times a week.

It used to be fun raising the devil with him; now he has other problems. He is probably laughing at what goes on here because we do not seem much closer to the actual solution of having the municipalities move in a co-operative way towards a development plan that will benefit all concerned. Instances emerge on a regular basis where that kind of unplanned development still occurs even in areas with regional governments, which are supposed to co-ordinate and once and for all give us a rational approach to the whole matter.

Certainly, as my colleague has already indicated, we are supporting the legislation. We are sorry it is so late. We are glad the example of Brantford and Brant county at least assisted local municipal officials to come to some sort of an agreement. I must say, as always, I feel the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, at least more latterly, has given some substantial assistance in this connection. But the whole approach of the confrontational solution, through the municipal board and diktats from the chief planner of the province indicating what the approach should be, surely is gone forever.

I repeat I regret also that so many hundreds of thousands, in fact, millions of dollars have just been thrown out the window to buy legal hired guns to fight the battles for the local elected people, who might very well have sat down and worked out a rational solution five or 10 years ago. But a lot of money has gone out of the taxpayers' pockets. The solution, when we see it, is not so difficult, and I am glad it has finally been arrived at.

Mr. Rotenberg: Very briefly, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) raised the matter of new development and I think we can assure him that, although it is in the official plan, no subdivision agreements would even be applied for until the Ministry of the Environment is satisfied that the water, sewers, et cetera for the new areas will be sufficient and that, if anything, there will be an improvement to Lake Simcoe and not the other way around.

He has asked if we have an open mind on the Coventry hearing a week Wednesday morning. I would simply point out that if this motion does carry this evening, Coventry will be officially informed and so will the township of Innisfil and the city of Barrie. Coventry will make its case and both Barrie and Innisfil will indicate why they want the agreement differently. The committee will then give its judgement based on the evidence before it.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk discussed this bill in terms of cutting out all the lawyers, and I certainly agree that is so. That is why we brought in Bill 147, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, so that lawyers would be cut out in the future. I do not know if it was intentional or not, but not only did we cut out the lawyers we also cut out all the consultants. If such a thing is possible, they are just as bad as the lawyers.

Mr. Nixon: I certainly do not mind voting for this.

Mr. Rotenberg: But I am really surprised that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would make such an impassioned plea for the land speculators who want to pave over prime agricultural land. I thought he and his party, or many of them, were all in favour of maintaining prime agricultural land in the province. What we are doing in this area is maintaining it in Innisfil township, and I am surprised he is not in favour of it.

Mr. Nixon: What about the farmers who have to pay for all that maintenance? You people sit down here in the city eating caviar, while the farmers are starving.

Mr. Rotenberg: With those words, Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill will carry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee on general government.

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved second reading of Bill 171, An Act respecting certain International Bridges.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation establishes a standard method by which international bridge authorities and commissions can make payments to municipalities in which the bridges are situated. Existing legislation governing Blue Water Bridge Authority and the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission will be repealed and replaced by this legislation. It will standardize the payments and settle the various disputes that have happened in the past between municipalities and bridge authorities. The municipalities in this case, although they would like more money, have indicated they are reasonably happy with the legislation as it is before us.

I believe this bill offers a comprehensive policy for payments in lieu of property taxes to be made for the international bridges named in this act and it sets a precedent for agreements for future bridges, for legislation for other bridges when the agreements for taxation of those bridges expire. I would commend this bill to the Legislature.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 171 and to rise on behalf of my colleagues, the official opposition, in support of the principle of the bill. The increase, as the minister has indicated, however small the amount, is no doubt appreciated by the municipalities that will be recipients of the additional income.

I do not have to tell the minister of the fiscal constraints many municipalities now face. They are looking at all areas of additional revenue increases to offset high property taxes. I was concerned about section 1(2) of the act, where it says:

"Notwithstanding any general or special act, the Assessment Act applies to real property vested in or controlled by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and situate within the city of Niagara Falls and the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, but such real property is not subject to taxation and the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission is not subject to assessment for business assessment under section 7 of the Assessment Act in respect of its occupation or use of the real property."

5:10 p.m.

I was interested this afternoon in the questions directed to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who is responsible for assessment policy in Ontario, related to the policy he will now perhaps be implementing on the day-care centres located in vacant school classrooms. We find we can make good public use of these classrooms. The minister says schools are assessed and I agree with that. They have always been assessed under the Assessment Act, but the buildings themselves have been exempt from municipal taxation.

If we follow the basis of the market value concept as this government has proposed for the last 10 years, it was considering that all property be assessed at market value. I do not know if this amendment to section 1 relates to the market value concept, even based upon the 1975 market value approach taken by the Ministry of Revenue.

I raise this question because I can recall when the Peace Bridge was opened in 1927 by the Prince of Wales, and at that time it was financed by a group of private developers, the bonds were secured by the government of the day and the debt was paid off. Now it is the Peace Bridge Authority. The revenue generated from that bridge alone provides substantial income for the municipality of Fort Erie compared to what these municipalities are going to get. I believe it is $22,000 in 1981 for the Blue Water Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge and Lewiston-Queenston Bridge.

The revenue generated for the town of Fort Erie by an agreement with the Peace Bridge Authority amounts to $120,000 for this year alone. Next year it will increase by $10,000, bringing it up to $130,000. I have questioned the parliamentary assistant in this area. The Peace Bridge has been assessed for years under the former county of Welland. Perhaps that is what brought about a generous concession to the municipality as it relates to taxes in lieu of assessment on the bridges. It was one of the first international bridges that was assessed by a county and by the municipality and, small as it is, I think the province could have done better than this.

Regarding the Rainbow Bridge, I believe the province, by agreement with the city of Niagara Falls, has had that frozen for 20 years at $12,000. It is going to be increased now to about $33,000 by 1983. When I look at the concept of market value as mentioned here, it will be assessed and I think that policy has been established by the Peace Bridge Authority and the municipality. There was a private bill presented by this member in the House on two occasions. I think the bill has not been introduced in the last couple of years because the two parties have been able to come to a favourable agreement.

My colleague Mr. Bullbrook, the former member for Sarnia, was delighted to get a copy of that agreement with the town of Fort Erie and the Peace Bridge Authority. He thought this was a great deal. I think this is one of the areas where further negotiations at the Blue Water Bridge brought additional revenue to the municipality.

We can go further than this to assist these municipalities in the constraints they are now facing if we follow that principle. If we look at the Fort Erie bridge, it generates revenue for the town. It also generates good revenue for the federal government. I think it is between $200,000 and $300,000 a year.

I was checking with the secretary this afternoon about the bridge and the revenue generated through the increase in tourism in the province, including those dedicated Americans who were coming over to get cheap gas that was being dumped down in the Fort Erie area. I was a little surprised when he said the increase in vehicles coming across the bridge did not necessarily generate additional revenue. He said: "If you travel across the bridge at Fort Erie, for example, you pay 35 cents one way. But when you buy a book of tickets that will give you a favourable fare rate of 20 cents a trip."

I look at this and at the area of the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge and all the trucks that come west from the American border into Toronto. About 90 per cent of those trucks cross at Lewiston and I suggest there is a good revenue base there for Ontario. I think more of that should be passed on to the community. I find in my area, particularly the Fort Erie area, it is nice to have these vehicles travel through the community, but there are other services that must be provided for the entrance to these bridges and the biggest share of that cost is perhaps borne by the municipalities.

We have to have arterial roads as connecting links to these bridges and much of it is not provided by provincial highways, but by either a regional or county road system. Based upon that, I think the minister can do more in this area so those municipalities receive a larger share of the revenues from those bridges.

The Rainbow Bridge has been there for some 20 years and I suggest that debt has been retired. Perhaps the same goes for other international bridges. I am sure there is additional revenue coming to this province but a much bigger share should go back to those communities. They are entitled to it. Taking the approach of market value assessment, I am sure much more additional revenue would have been provided to the municipalities if the bridges were assessed at market value.

We are coming in with this particular bill this afternoon and saying: "We have come to an agreement with the municipalities and the bridge authorities. The government thinks it is a good move that they should get additional funding." The government can go much further and I suggest it perhaps should.

We support the bill in principle, but perhaps in the next two years we should take a look at the agreement with the town of Fort Erie and the Peace Bridge Authority. I find on the American side there are authorities set up. All that money, for example, from the Peace Bridge goes to the Buffalo Peace Bridge Authority. It uses that for improvements on the Peace Bridge structure. They use the money for transportation purposes. In fact, they even used it to improve their international airport in Buffalo.

There is sufficient funding there that should be passed on to the communities. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the next time the agreement comes up we should give them a little more. I think they deserve a bigger share. I do not know what the government does with the revenue from this. Perhaps it goes into the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Rotenberg: It goes to the municipality.

Mr. Haggerty: He says he does not get it. Who gets it?

Mr. Rotenberg: The municipality gets it.

Mr. Haggerty: Not all of it; I am afraid they do not get all of it. I suggest as much as it is or as small it is, we go along with the principle of the bill and support it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, we support the principle there should be payments in lieu of taxes to communities with property that is difficult to assess, which provides public services and undoubtedly requires some services from the municipalities and therefore costs the municipalities some amounts of money for providing municipal garbage collection and so on to the buildings connected with the structures.

5:20 p.m.

It appears that in the past it has not been found feasible to assess anything but the buildings connected with the bridges. To assess the structures themselves was a problem. The payments in lieu of taxes appear to be the logical answer. The question is, does this bill increase the load on the bridges which will ultimately make the payments in lieu of taxes to the municipalities? It appears it will.

The amounts envisaged in the legislation will be somewhat above what the bridge authorities have been paying in the past. I suppose we could argue that the costs have gone up but, to phase in this increased load under the legislation, the government is proposing to pay the assessments in the amount of two thirds the first year, one third the next year and none the third year; in other words, to phase it in over three years. The taxpayers of this province will be paying for the phasing in.

Since most of the bridge authorities are public authorities, it is really a matter of who will pay the extra costs, the international authority or the province. Ultimately, I imagine the bridge authorities will raise the tolls to cover the extra levy envisaged by this bill so that it will become, in effect, a user charge.

We are prepared to support this bill because we think municipalities should be compensated for the costs of having structures of this sort within their boundaries. I think the proposed payments are reasonable. They will be escalated as mill rates and costs go up but that is a necessary part of seeing that the municipalities are able to meet inflation.

We will support this bill.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their co-operation in supporting the bill.

In response to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the approaches to the bridges are assessed on the same basis as other commercial properties in municipalities. If the municipalities are on market value assessment, the bridges are on market value. If they have had a section 86, they are included in it. If the other commercial properties in the municipality are on the 1975 assessment, the bridge would be on the same basis.

We have been informed that the Peace Bridge does pay considerably more taxes than some of the other bridges. Until now, Fort Erie has not asked us to interfere in that sort of thing on the bridge. Other bridges are coming up to the standard, I think, of the Peace Bridge and these other bridges are receiving a considerable increase in taxes over the next several years. With those words, I ask that this bill be supported.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

PLANNING ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 159, An Act to revise the Planning Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make an opening statement.

Mr. Cunningham: Start by telling us where Mr. Bennett is.

Ms. Bryden: The minister is not here.

Mr. Cunningham: Why isn't he?

Mr. Wildman: How come you have to work so hard for your minister? The other parliamentary assistants don't work so hard for their ministers.

Mr. Rotenberg: This is a very important piece of legislation, not only for the members of this Legislature but for the rest of the people. If the members opposite do not want to hear what is going on it is quite all right. I am wondering if they are really serious about discussing this bill before us.

Mr. Wildman: What is the problem? Does Claude not understand the bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member will continue with his opening statement.

Mr. Swart: We think you should be the minister if you have to handle a bill like this.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is the first intelligent thing that has been said by a member from the opposition all day.

Mr. Swart: You should displace the present one.

Mr. Rotenberg: Without taking anything away from the present minister, I think he is doing an excellent job. He is very familiar with this act, but he asked me to carry this legislation in the House. It is a matter of dividing the responsibility through the ministry and I think it is done very well.

As I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted, there has been over the past many years extensive participation by municipal associations and many other interested groups in the process of preparing this legislation. This bill has been revised from previous drafts to respond to many of the concerns of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and other groups within the province.

After second reading I will recommend this bill be sent to the standing committee on general government to be dealt with during the winter recess -- dates are not yet set, but they will be by the House leaders -- to have a detailed clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. The committee would also hear any further representation from municipalities, municipal associations, ratepayer groups and, although the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has gone, even the Municipal Lawyers Association. Anyone who wishes to make representation will be invited to do so.

Quite frankly, we in the ministry and the government will be treating this bill in committee somewhat differently than most bills that go before committee. We are sending it on the understanding from our side that the bill is open to suggestions, it is open to amendments, and we are not married to any specific clause in the bill. We hope, as a result of this further discussion before the committee, that if there are amendments necessary we will consider them. But as a result of the process -- with the co-operation of the members opposite, and I am sure we will have it -- I hope we will come up with a Planning Act that will be a model for this province for many years to come.

Having indicated that we will deal with this in detail in committee, I would hope debate in the House today can be conducted on the principle of the bill and we can leave the details to discussion at a later date. This, of course, does not in any way preclude any member opposite from discussing any matter in the bill.

I would like to take a few moments to indicate to the House how this proposed act differs from the present Planning Act. For the first time provision is made in the act for identifying provincial interests. This process will help to provide municipalities with a clear framework for their planning.

The act will enable the province to issue policy statements on specific planning matters with cabinet approval. These policy statements will, for example, define the provincial interest in such important policy areas as the protection of food lands or the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. Thus ambiguity will be reduced and clearer direction given to those charged with local planning responsibilities.

The minister's power to approve certain planning activities was previously delegated only to regional municipalities. This policy is to be expanded so that counties, cities and other qualified municipalities might also be delegated approval authorities providing they meet certain criteria set out by the minister. Of course, we will not be forcing these approval powers on municipalities. If municipalities want the authority they will have to request it. It will not happen automatically.

It should go without saying that no municipality will be delegated the power to approve its own official plan. The province will approve the official plans of regional municipalities and counties, and in the absence of such plan the local official plan as well. When a region or county plan receives such approval it may then approve the local official plans.

The new act requires that where provincial ministries, boards and agencies conduct activities they think will affect municipalities they must consult those municipalities and take local planning policies into account. This will ensure that municipalities are aware of and involved in such provincial matters as may affect them.

Under the revised act, planning between two or more municipalities in southern Ontario will be entirely voluntary. However the provisions of the present act on joint planning will remain in effect in northern Ontario because it is sometimes necessary for the minister to include unorganized territories adjacent to municipalities in joint planning areas.

5:30 p.m.

The formal role of planning boards in southern Ontario will be discontinued. To make the planning process more directly accountable to local citizens, the responsibility for planning will rest directly with municipal councils. However, councils may, if they choose, appoint advisory committees to assist them in carrying out their planning functions.

We have also refined the definition of official plans. In future, while official plans will focus primarily on physical matters, social, environmental and economic concerns will have to be taken into account in developing these plans. In future, unless the specific provincial interest is identified in advance, the Ontario Municipal Board will be the final arbiter on most planning appeals. Where the minister believes a matter of provincial interest is at stake, the board will be asked to hold a hearing and report to cabinet, which will then make the final decision.

The final change I would like to mention is that requirements for public participation have been improved and made uniform under the revised act. Before adopting an official plan or a zoning bylaw, a municipality must hold a public meeting to discuss whether proposed measures should be adopted. This will result in more effective public involvement in planning issues at the early stage.

Those are some of the highlights of the changes in principle of the proposed Planning Act from the present act. There is a lot of detail in this act. I hope we will spend a lot of time in committee discussing this detail and will be able to report back to the House next year with an agreement on a new Planning Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this very important piece of legislation. Since the parliamentary assistant indicated it was very important, I am surprised the minister is not here. I wonder whether this is his regular afternoon for bowling or whether he will appear as a spokesman before the committee when it sits in February or March, or whenever it sits, in order to present his views on the bill. I would have thought he would have presented them today.

Interjection.

Mr. Epp: Oh, he is raking one of his four lawns, I am told.

I do agree it is a very important piece of legislation. I am glad the parliamentary assistant indicated this will go before a committee. There are many municipalities as well as individuals and citizen groups who will want to make presentations on various parts of the bill.

I have a number of concerns I would like to raise this afternoon because they need to be raised. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House will want to raise a number of matters. First, we have to look at the definition of planning matters in the province. In BC, what they do is refer not to a planning act but to a land use act. That is what this act is concerned with. It is not planning, it is land use.

Municipalities will be dealing with "physical matters." I quote, "'Official plan' means a document approved by the minister containing objectives and policies established primarily to provide guidance for the physical development of a municipality or a part thereof or an area that is without municipal organization, while having regard to such social, economic and environmental matters as appear to be relevant."

What does "regard to" mean? It is a very nebulous, vague term. It means one can pay attention to it, or if one does not want to pay attention to it, one does not have to. A number of people to whom I have spoken are very much concerned about this. They say the province has two policies; it has an important conflict in a number of areas.

For instance, in my own riding, in the small town of St. Jacobs, they recently had to accommodate a boarding house in so far as the physical planning was concerned. The Ministry of Community and Social Services says in its legislation -- I notice the parliamentary assistant is not paying attention; is he ready now? -- that a municipality must provide for a boarding house. And at the same time we are saying in this document --

Interjections.

Mr. Epp: Are you ready?

At the same time we are saying in the Planning Act that all we have to do is give regard to these matters. And as I indicated, it means nothing. It was the same thing for instance in the city of Toronto. In 1978 they passed a bylaw that said for every three rooms in a boarding house they had to provide one parking spot. We are dealing with a physical thing as far as parking is concerned, but we are also dealing with a social problem as far as accommodation is concerned. The government is mixing the social and the physical, but at the same time the act does not give enough emphasis to the social.

In the city of Toronto, for instance, the second-biggest budget they have is for social services. It is very important, yet this act really does not pay enough attention to it. The hostels are another problem. The bill must provide hostels and it must zone for them, as far as some of the psychiatric patients and so forth are concerned. Yet I think this act neglects that somewhat.

What happens with the environmental concerns? A municipality has to provide for flood plains in its planning and that is a physical thing. As far as this definition is concerned it is a planning matter, and yet it is really an environmental concern that should be incorporated.

These are some of the questions that should be asked and answered in committee. I am just giving the parliamentary assistant notice that the ministry must take a close look at that again. I know a number of the planners and people who have looked at the act say this section should be broadened to give greater emphasis to social, economic and environmental matters.

The province assumes a number of responsibilities itself. If we look at part 1, the provincial administration, we notice the province says they are going to be responsible for "(a) the protection of the natural environment, including the agricultural resource base of the province, and the management of natural resources; (b) the protection of features of significant natural, architectural, historical or archaeological interest; (c) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy" and so forth. These things are important to the province, but as far as this act is concerned they are not important to the municipalities.

When we look at the section on official plans we find that one municipality should be able, when allowed by another municipality, to plan for another municipality. I find this somewhat difficult because municipalities often have conflicting interests. If one municipality, whether upper tier or lower tier, is going to be planning for another -- and we know the planning will most obviously be done by the upper tier for the lower tier -- there are going to be some real conflicting interests that will have to be resolved. Farming these planning matters out to another municipality presents this conflict, and I am sorry to see that it is in this act.

The other problem with section 15 has to do with part (b), which says the council of a county or of a regional, metropolitan or district municipality may "provide advice and assistance to the local municipality in respect of planning matters generally." That means, as I understand it, that a municipality can provide advice and assistance specifically to the local municipality in respect of planning matters generally. So specific matters are being confused with general matters -- another point that should be clarified.

As far as the official plans are concerned, we find in sections 18 to 20 that if there is an appeal, or if the province wants to declare a policy of provincial interest, they can do so 10 days in advance. Personally I think 10 days is a very short time; I think that period should probably be about 21 days. This section comes out again under bylaws and amendments to the Planning Act, where we are talking about 10 days.

5:40 p.m.

We are talking about policy statements here, where the minister is able to put out policy guidelines and circulate those to the municipalities in the province. If some matter that comes before council is of provincial significance the minister can so indicate to the municipality and thereby take it out of the hands of the Ontario Municipal Board if he so wishes.

This is a problem for municipalities. I think if some matters are of provincial interest it will be difficult to separate them from matters of local interest. I think if this act comes into force the way it is, in a few years we will be back here in the Legislature rewriting this section because of the confusion it is going to cause, both to the OMB and to local municipalities, as far as differentiating what those matters are.

Also, I will read from section 21(2) where we are speaking about the minister: "Where the minister is satisfied that there is not a matter of provincial interest adversely affected by an amendment to an official plan submitted to him for approval and no request for approval has been received under section 17(10) he may, in writing, waive the requirement for approval thereof, whereupon the amendment shall be deemed to be approved."

Why is the minister chicken? Why is he not approving the thing rather than waiving his right to approve it. I guess this way he merely waives the right and it is approved. Otherwise he should actually approve it, but somehow or other, the minister is reluctant to take that important step, to put his signature on the line and approve something. In this case he is merely waiving his right to the matter. He is forgoing his right to object, and thereby accomplishing what he could do by just approving that matter.

We also want to look at section 23, where we are speaking about the request by the minister to amend a plan. We would very much like look at subsection 2, where, when the minister proposes to make an amendment to an official plan under subsection 1, the minister may, on the request of any person or municipality, request the municipal board to hold a hearing on the proposed amendment. I am somewhat at a loss as to why the minister "may" have a hearing when an individual requests this, but when the municipality asks for it, he "shall" have a hearing. I would very much like to see that "may" replaced by the word "shall" so that the minister is obligated to hold that hearing when the need arises.

With respect to section 23(3): "Despite subsection 2, where the minister is of the opinion that a hearing by the municipal board would serve no useful purpose or that the request is made only for the purpose of delay, he may refuse the request." I find it difficult to support something of that nature. I really believe that should be removed because I am sure if people ask for a hearing they should be entitled to it. The minister should not be in a position to waive that section.

Section 45(1) deals with committees of adjustment, and I will read the section: "The committee of adjustment, upon the application of the owner of any land, building or structure affected by any bylaw that is passed under section 34, 37 or 40, or a predecessor of such sections, or any person authorized in writing by the owner, may, despite any other act, authorize such minor variances..."

I could be corrected on this but as I understand it this section authorizes a committee of adjustment to have minor variances. Yet on the same page, further down on page 44 at the bottom, section 45(3) says: "A council that has constituted a committee of adjustment may by bylaw empower the committee of adjustment to grant minor variances from the provisions of any bylaw of the municipality that implements an official plan, or from such bylaws of the municipality as are specified and that implement an official plan.

Either the committee of adjustment has the right to authorize minor variances, or it does not have the right. If it has the right under the first part of section 45 as I understand it, then the council does not have to give them that right separately later on as is indicated in the proposed legislation here.

I think subsection 3 must be rewritten. As I was speaking to different people about this act they indicated they find it very confusing. They think that in some cases the committee of adjustment can make any kind of variances and not only variances to bylaws. They think a committee of adjustment would be able to vary an official plan as opposed to varying a bylaw, which is very different. That would give a committee of adjustment, which is an appointed body, an inordinate amount of responsibility which I do not believe they should have. I think the council should have that. So I would respectfully suggest the writers of this legislation take another look at it in the hope of clarifying that proposal.

Section 50(20) on page 55 deals with divisions of land by will. I am not sure if the minister is aware of this but I understand people who wanted to subdivide land into different lots, if they had a very smart lawyer, could do it in their will. I know my colleague was referring to lawyers earlier, but if one had a very clever lawyer they could do it. Apparently it has happened that a son who was a lawyer, decided to recommend to his father that he implement in his will the division of land into separate lots. When the father passed away, the will was read and this then had to be put into force. What he could not do when he was living, he was able to do when he was dead.

According to this legislation, this will remove the right of having that included in the will so that no one in the future will be able to subdivide their land in their will if they were not able to do it going through the regular process.

I want to also draw attention to section 69, which deals with development standards. I can understand in one respect why the provincial government would recommend the minister would have the authority to set standards for development in various municipalities. The problem with this proposal is that the minister could extend his right to have a certain amount of uniformity in various municipalities or across the province.

5:50 p.m.

I understand this is something developers asked for. I am not sure if this was put in because the developers had a very important lobby for this. I can understand that if developers dealing with municipal legislation build, for instance, or develop land in several municipalities across the province, they like to have some kind of conformity. The problem with this is that it takes away from local municipalities the kind of autonomy that this government has often said it wants municipalities to have.

If the minister has the right to force municipalities to comply with certain legislation, certain specific standards he thinks they should have -- for instance, he may decide that across the province any new subdivision built has to have sidewalks, curbs, light standards of a certain height, energy consumption of a certain amount, sewers of a certain width and so forth, beyond what may naturally be expected -- if these are the kinds of powers the minister wishes to implement or use, I would think they would be an abuse of his position as minister.

I think local municipalities are in the best position to do that kind of planning, and I hope this particular section is clarified when it goes before the committee. As it is now, it is too broad and gives the minister too much responsibility.

Finally, because the Planning Act, with about 73 pages, is a very voluminous piece of legislation and one that is going to have a great impact on the province and on municipalities, I recommend that the provincial government set up some kind of administration branch to advise planners, to advise smaller municipalities on the implementation of this new legislation. I suggest this because of the fact that many zone changes or official plans and so forth that are now in the hopper, in the process of being changed, will be changed according to the old act.

When this new act comes into force, any new applications will be dealt with under the new act. It will take a number of years before the old applications are finally processed and we are working completely under the new act. In the interim period, I think it is important that smaller municipalities and those groups and consultants and so forth who do not have the expertise to study both pieces of legislation and to be completely familiar with them, have access to some people in the ministry who would advise them on how to proceed.

On that note, I look forward to this going to committee and having various groups, particularly municipal groups, make their presentations so that their concerns can be better incorporated in this piece of legislation.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my regret that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not here to participate in this debate. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House. It culminates six years of study and review of our planning legislation in this province. It is part of a process that started with the appointment of the Planning Act Review Committee in 1975 under Eli Comay. This committee reported in June 1977. There was an opportunity for comment on it and more than 350 submissions were heard.

In May 1979 the government introduced a white paper giving its reaction to the Comay report and the comments on it. In December 1979 a draft bill was brought in and more than 350 submissions were heard on that. Finally we came forward with bill 159 in October of this year.

It is certainly a subject that has had very great study. It is a completely new bill in the sense that it is not an amendment. I understand about a third of the former Planning Act is incorporated in it but with some significant changes even in some of the sections that we might say were carried over.

There are a considerable number of new concepts introduced in this bill and for that reason we should not pass it without considerable debate. The public also should have an opportunity to be involved again in what may be the final draft of our new planning legislation. That is why I think this bill should be sent to a standing committee for further public hearings.

When he introduced the bill, the minister said it indicated the government's commitment to deregulation and strengthening the role of local government. I think we have to ask if deregulation is always a good thing. Deregulation is not a good thing if it allows one interest to have too large a say or too much power in areas where there are conflicting interests.

In the realm of land use we all know the main contenders are developers versus citizens. There are also conflicting land uses, with people wanting to use land for different purposes: industrial, recreational, residential, highways or for provision of social facilities. All these conflicting interests must be reconciled and the people espousing them must have a full opportunity to present their cases.

Deregulation can mean that safeguards for the hearing of the views of all the conflicting interests may be watered down or even left out. Therefore I am not sure I accept the minister's objective of deregulation as a good thing. We have to look more closely at the terms of this bill as to how it protects the rights of different parties. We must examine how it allows conflicting interests to state their positions and how it ensures there is some sort of impartial arbitration between the different interests.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak for quite a lengthy time. I think this might be a suitable time to interrupt my remarks and adjourn the debate, if that is satisfactory.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 8, 1981