DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third reading on motion:
Bill 36, An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture;
Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.
House in committee of the whole.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT
Consideration of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.
The Deputy Chairman: There is an amendment to the bill.
On section 1:
Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately I was not present at the standing committee, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of section 1 is to eliminate the requirement for a two-thirds vote of council to overturn a decision of the executive committee. I wonder if the government is prepared to accept a little more democracy from its own caucus in this connection, since it is doing away with this rather heavy-handed approach that has been part of Toronto legislation. Perhaps the government House leader could indicate if this is now Tory policy and whether the actual Conservatives are going to have a hand in running the government from now on?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the connection between the city of Toronto executive committee and this caucus, which is always very democratic. Everybody has one vote and we run this House very well.
Mr. Martel: Maybe you can clarify for me, Mr. Chairman, with your vast wealth of knowledge in the field, who is carrying this bill? It stands in the name of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). I do not see her in the precincts anywhere. I just wonder if it is incumbent on the person who is the sponsor of the bill to be in the House when the bill is being considered. I simply do not know. Maybe you could clarify it for me.
The Deputy Chairman: For the sake of the member for Sudbury East and all other members, when a sponsoring member is not present, any other honourable member can make the motion in his or her absence, and that has been done.
Mr. Rotenberg: I would point out to the member for Sudbury East that the member for St. George is in committee. We have conferred on this. She is quite content to have me carry this bill, which is in her name. I would also point out that private bills, as distinguished from other bills when they have carriage, are normally carried by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr. Foulds: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder if you could point that out to us in the standing orders.
The Deputy Chairman: I cannot hear you because of your neighbour.
Mr. Foulds: I wonder where in the standing orders private bills are considered to be the responsibility of the parliamentary assistant of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, Mr. Chairman, a lot of things happen. A lot of people assume other people's responsibilities. It is not in the standing orders. Quite often I have seen members opposite, when a member is not there, move a motion in his or her name. That is quite in order in this House. There is nothing in the standing orders that requires the person responsible for the bill to be in the House at the time. I really fail to see why at this stage of the game the opposition members are being so picayune in bringing up matters that have been the custom of this House for centuries.
Mr. Martel: I am irritated that the member says I am being picayune. I asked the chairman what I consider is a legitimate question, since the situation is not covered in the rules. If my friend the member for Wilson Heights thinks he can go around here making up rules as the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) did this afternoon, that is fine, but it does not work that way around here. If a member looks for clarification he is not being picayune. If I wanted to be picayune, I could really play a number on this bill.
The Deputy Chairman: I accepted the member for Sudbury East's point and --
Mr. Martel: Well, he said I was being picayune. I just thought he should crawl back into his hole.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Martel: Might I ask once more for clarification? I have been here for a few years and I cannot recall a bill -- why are we going through these gymnastics? Was the bill not carried in committee and then brought to the House just for third reading? Is someone planning to move an amendment or what?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, it was ordered for committee of the whole House.
Mr. Martel: Are you going to move an amendment?
The Deputy Chairman: There is an amendment coming now.
On section 5:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 5 be deleted from the bill.
Mr. Martel: Do you have a copy of that amendment?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes. That is the amendment.
Mr. Nixon: I would like to speak to that amendment. Before I do, the parliamentary assistant might want to say something about why he is reversing the member for St. George in this important and sensitive matter.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Rotenberg: I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, and I would indicate that although the member for St. George was not a member of the committee she has indicated she is quite content with the motion I am putting to have this matter deleted from the bill.
The comments I make basically apply to both section 5 and section 6 of the bill, in which the city of Toronto asks for some special licensing powers.
We have a number of licensing powers not granted to the municipalities in the general legislation of the Municipal Act. We have before the House at the moment Bill 11, which has had first reading and, I hope, will very shortly have second reading, which gives municipalities far more sweeping powers to license. In effect Bill 11 says that, subject to certain conditions, municipalities can license any trade, industry or group if they so desire. We are taking away all the many sections of the Municipal Act that indicate those things that municipalities can license.
The purpose of licensing is to ensure that those people who are licensed are identifiable and responsible to the public; that if something goes wrong in any trade or business they are in, people know they are registered, they have an address and have some financial responsibility. Where qualifications are required, as they are for a plumber or for somebody doing heating or home repairs, the municipality can ensure that those people have the minimum qualifications in whatever they are doing.
However, there are a couple of principles in our licensing bill and in government policy on licensing that border on human or civil rights. Licensing cannot be used to grant a monopoly; that is, you cannot say there will be only so many barbers' shops or gas stations in a municipality. The two exceptions to that rule are taxicabs and body-rub parlours, which are specifically exempted in Bill 11 and in the present legislation before us.
Licensing shall not limit the number of people in a trade. Licensing cannot prescribe a fee that would be prohibitive and, in effect, keep people out of business. And it cannot restrict the areas in which a person can ply his trade; that is to be done by the zoning bylaw.
Although the government and the ministry would have no objection in section 5 to the straight licensing of street entertainers for a nominal fee, the city has asked for a number of powers that are contrary to Bill 11, which, I hope, will get the support of this House when it gets here, and also contrary to the present act.
If you look in clause 5(3)(a), you will see it wants to establish any "terms and conditions which must be complied with prior to the issuing of a licence;" which gives them wide-open powers to do just about anything. Under clause 5(3)(c), it wants to be able to "prescribe priorities, locations and hours of operation;" which licensing normally does not allow.
Under clause 5(3)(d), it wants to limit the number of licences, which in effect is a monopoly provision that could lead to favouritism and certainly should not be allowed. They want to prescribe any fee they wish for a licence, and if the fee is prohibitive they could restrict people by prescribing the fee. I would point out that, according to Bill 11, the fee shall be $10 maximum, or $25 if an examination is required, or the amount it costs the municipality to administer such licensing. And they provide for certain restrictions in clause 5(3)(f).
What I am saying, really, is that although we would have no objection to a straight power to license street musicians, which the city will have when Bill 11 is passed, we do object to all of the restrictions and limitations, which would give the city of Toronto powers that would not be in accordance with government policy or with what I think are basic civil rights. If someone meets the qualifications he should be able to get a licence for a nominal fee. The city wants to license only so many street musicians, and they could charge a fee that is not in accordance with government policy.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do we limit the number of taxis?
Mr. Rotenberg: I have indicated that the two exceptions this Legislature has passed are taxicabs and body-rub parlours. Those are the only exceptions to the monopoly provisions.
For all these reasons I have moved that section 5 be deleted from the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Before the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) responds, and I will call upon him next, the proper motion really is that section 5 not stand as part of the bill.
Mr. Rotenberg: If that is the proper way I would be more than pleased to move it that way, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I always felt that a motion to delete was a little bit redundant. All he has to do is vote against the section and persuade --
The Deputy Chairman: That is what the table has just said.
Mr. Nixon: Except that you did not.
Mr. Foulds: I do not think he said it that way.
Mr. Nixon: Sure. There is no motion at all other than that the bill is before us for approval, and if either you or the parliamentary assistant do not like it you can vote against it.
Before I make some comments I would like to ask a question of the honourable member. Was he present in the committee to give the same arguments he just presented to the House to the representatives of the city of Toronto, including the honourable member who presented the bill and who is not here tonight? In other words, were either you or the minister present at the committee to present the government's policy, or did this just ride through the committee and you are now undergoing some sort of a correction process?
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I was present at the committee. I presented basically the same case to the committee, and the section passed by a split vote -- I think by one vote. The member for St. George was present. She is not a member of committee, but agreed with the position I took.
Mr. Nixon: It looks very good, as far as I can see. With the new-found independence of Conservative policy and caucus that was expressed in their vote this afternoon, we may still preserve some of the independence of the city in this particular amendment.
I am very fortunate in that I come to Toronto occasionally for my responsibilities but live elsewhere. I should tell you that when I drive here in my Citation and cross the bridge over the Humber my spirits are always lifted, because I love this city. And it is nice when I go home because when I cross the bridge and leave the city my spirits are lifted again. It is very nice.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: No wonder you are so high.
Mr. Nixon: Of course, I am just going into Mississauga and that will do it every time.
I say to the parliamentary assistant, away at the end of the row, I really do think this is a marvellous town. One of the fine things is walking by the Royal Ontario Museum. There is a gentleman there with one of those pushcarts that has a little steam whistle blowing away. I have always been noted for the finer things of life, like good food, and the cashews he sells are marvellous. So is everything else.
When I cross at the corner of College Street, there is a charming lady selling flowers. I do not know how this was done in the past without the benefit of the approval of this House, or at least of that particular assistant minister, but obviously it seems to be working fairly well.
In some areas, Kensington Market and so on, there are people who are selling on the street, which I find extremely acceptable and quite interesting. It gives a great deal of charm to the town, and they all seem to be selling things that I usually want, which is also a good thing.
I am not sure what the minister is worried about, or what the member for St. George had in mind when she presented this bill. Obviously, the city feels this is becoming a substantial arm of business of some sort, and that it has the right to issue licences under the provisions of this particular statute. There is the very fact that the parliamentary assistant explained his objection and referred to some bill that is introduced in the House and may become law at some time, although the legislative program does not seem to be whistling through at any great speed. But the city is making a proposal which has been discussed in council and which the members have approved for the benefit of their community.
I know that the parliamentary assistant was once budget chief of Toronto and is very familiar with the town. He made a valiant run for mayor on one occasion. Actually, before I knew him so well, I would have thought he would have made a good mayor. Maybe he still would be if he wants to return to municipal politics.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not all of us can be mayor.
Mr. Nixon: It seems strange for him to be in his seat of power in this ministry, to look at what Toronto presents and to say in effect: "Not yet, little man. We do not think you are up to licensing these businessmen."
It must be very irritating for the council of the city of Toronto in dealing with their democratically elected local representative -- who I am glad to see has joined the deliberations here -- only to find themselves absolutely stymied by the parliamentary assistant. Because he was almost mayor and used to be budget chief, which is a big thing in Toronto, he seems to be listened to on that side with a great deal of respect. Day by day we can see that is so.
I cannot understand why you would not be prepared simply to say to Toronto, "That looks like a reasonable proposal, and perhaps we might model general legislation on what you have put forward." Mind you, this is for a metropolis, for a big town with a lot of action. I am not so sure it would work in South Dumfries. But that is what we are here for, to adjust it to these various communities.
8:20 p.m.
As far as I am concerned, I am very much in favour of flower vendors, the people who are selling food and other things, and the musicians in town. I would hope they would be recognized as a viable part of the business life as well as part of the attractive colour and ambience, as we call it in South Dumfries, of this fine city. I am not much impressed by the assistant minister's arguments that we ought to throw the whole thing out.
After all, this was considered by the council of this city, brought here and passed by the committee dealing with it on an impartial, nonpartisan basis. It must have been if the parliamentary assistant was exercising all his wiles on them and they still rejected it. I think the House ought to follow their example and pass this section as it is written.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think we should be perfectly clear about what is going on here tonight. What is happening is the parliamentary assistant is trying to reverse a decision made in committee by a very narrow vote. By six to five, the committee decided to keep section 5 in the act. We also decided to keep section 6 in the act. It will be coming up shortly and I understand the member for Wilson Heights is planning to move an amendment to take it out as well.
We have before us, or will have, two sections that were adopted by the committee by a vote of six to five. I am not sure what happened in the committee, whether one of the Conservatives who joined the five opposition members to vote for those sections was asleep or whether he was actually convinced by our arguments that this legislation should stay in the City of Toronto Act. The city of Toronto had asked for this legislation and presumably the member for St. George had considered it worthy of sponsoring.
Mr. Martel: No wonder she was in committee. I can understand why she did not not want to be here now.
Ms. Bryden: But of course she did not have a vote in committee, so she was not one of the six who voted for it. One Conservative member did vote for it.
Mr. Nixon: Who was that?
Ms. Bryden: The record does not tell us and I am afraid I did not keep a record of that.
The member for St. George did say she would have preferred to have some things in this legislation that are not there, such as control over the people who clutter up the streets by trying to convince people to support sectarian causes but, since the legislation did not cover that, it appeared that only what are called "street entertainers" and, in section 6, "flower vendors" were to be controlled by this bill.
The member for St. George also mentioned that she was in favour of limiting the number of body-rub parlours and taxis, but she was not in favour of limiting the number of street entertainers or flower sellers.
What is really at issue here is the question of whether the city of Toronto has grown up and is out of short pants. It seems to me it has a responsible council that should be able to decide what goes on on the streets of Toronto and what kind of milieu we have in the city. That was why I supported these sections when the city came to us and said it was having problems with overcongestion on the streets and that it wanted to have some say in how many people there were on any particular street at any particular time.
It is not against street entertainers or flower sellers, but it wants to have the right to prevent congestion situations which are aggravated as well by these sectarian sellers, who are selling ideas and trying to collect funds.
The mayor came and said they did not intend to put on prohibitive fees and to keep people out by that method, which is certainly an unfair method because it is rationing by the dollar and would put a lot of people out of business. They simply wanted the power to be able to limit the numbers and to control the traffic in whatever way seemed desirable to ensure that our streets were viable and pleasant places.
I do not think we should go along with this effort by the Conservatives to reverse what happened in committee. We discussed it at great length. We had the mayor of Toronto there and he told us exactly what they intended to do. I think most, well certainly a majority, of the committee members thought it was a reasonable thing to do.
I think tonight we should turn back the effort to strike out these clauses that were adopted.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, just several brief points. If the member for Beaches-Woodbine is indicating when a matter comes from a committee --
Mr. Ruston: The member for St. George should be allowed to speak.
Mr. Rotenberg: We are in committee of the whole, people can speak more than once, there are no restrictions.
Mr. Nixon: It's all right. He will speak again.
Mr. Rotenberg: If the member for Beaches-Woodbine in speaking for her party is saying is that once something is passed in committee it should not be rediscussed or reversed in the House, then if we can get a commitment from that party that any bill coming up from committee will not be further debated in the House, I would gladly give up these two clauses. If we can get the commitment from that party they will never raise a matter coming up from committee, I will gladly give up these two clauses.
Mr. Ruston: It's different.
Mr. Rotenberg: It is different when they want something than when we want something.
Mr. Martel: Who is we? That is what I am trying to find out about the whole process of this bill.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Has the member for St. George changed her mind and does she want to change the bill now -- can I put that to the member for Wuthering Heights?
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) if he would listen -- he who never was in municipal politics -- when he mentions he likes the flower vendors and likes the popcorn vendors, I would point out that the popcorn vendors are licensed, unrestricted. They can go anywhere since there is no restriction on their licences. The popcorn vendors are doing fine. The flower vendors are not licensed, they are not restricted, and the flower vendors are doing fine.
If the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk likes the street musicians and likes the flower vendors, as I do, he should be voting with me to delete these clauses. These clauses will not allow those people to be in business. Because they are now unrestricted, these clauses will allow the city to put undue restrictions on the flower vendors and on the street musicians so the city of Toronto can restrict them and not allow them to be in business as they are now.
We have no objection to licensing these people. If it was a straight bill to just simply license in accordance with the other policies we would not have objected. But because they want to put these undue restrictions on, I would think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would support my motion to allow these people to continue in business.
Ms. Fish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to all of the members in the House for permitting me the opportunity of speaking perhaps a little bit out of rotation.
I would like to address the question of the proposed deletion of two sections of the bill that through the standing committee stage had remained in the bill.
The origin of the concern that the city was expressing, and the grounds for which the city council in its wisdom chose to seek this particular power, were based on a concern that the authority to license and regulate the flower vendors and buskers or street entertainers was not available.
I think mention has been made of the fact that the discussions did flow principally from reviews of what had been occurring in the Yonge Street corridor area where I believe the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) quite correctly noted that the concern was not particularly about flower vendors and buskers, because there are not that many of them on the streets, but rather the compounding effect of large amounts of activity that collect crowds or perhaps impede or make more difficult some pedestrian traffic.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: You are not thinking of licensing those are you?
Ms. Fish: No, no; just a second. I recall the earlier debates on it because I was serving on council at the time the earlier discussions came forward, and I think it was well understood by the city that the proposal to deal with the flower vendors and the buskers was an attempt to identify among the groups of people, or the types of activities that would occur on the street, those activities that one could reasonably identify as being suitable for licensing.
Mention already has been made of the variety of other activities that might begin to impinge upon proselytizing, whether through a political or religious view or what have you. Clearly, the council was not seeking in any way to intrude upon that quite legitimate activity in the street, but it recognized that the more these kinds of things happen on the streets, when there is a lively and attractive city where people want to take advantage of pedestrian areas, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a sort of balance: to deal with the concern of shop owners about what is happening on their sidewalks and to deal with the pedestrian flow.
The identification of flower vendors and buskers was an attempt to look at what the package of activity was and to try to identify those things that one could reasonably look to as an appropriate activity for licensing, recognizing also that there are a lot of other activities occurring on the street which would not be appropriate for licensing.
At the time that came forward there did not appear to be any opportunity for a municipal level to get into that area of licensing. Concern was expressed about whether there was adequate opportunity under the then existing legislation for Metropolitan Toronto even to enter the area should it wish to do so.
Members will be aware that licensing within Metropolitan Toronto is a metropolitan responsibility. Within this municipal family, if I am may describe it that way, we have the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission, which handles all the licensing responsibilities for Metro as a whole; obviously that includes the city, because the city is a constituent municipality within Metro.
Concern was expressed about whether Metro, under the existing provisions, was able to enter into this area for licensing. There was also a bit of concern as to whether, if Metro were able to enter into it on a Metro-wide basis, the licensing commission would choose to enter into it. The way the licensing commission would operate would be to establish standards right across Metro. The focus of the concern and interest in this licensing was not only not Metro-wide and not even citywide; it was narrowed down much more finely to a very few streets that are located pretty well around the Yonge Street corridor.
Following upon that there was a concern that even if the legislation would permit the Metro licensing commission to enter into the field, and even if the Metro licensing commission chose not to enter the field but agreed that such activities were appropriate to licensing, would there be a willingness on the part of the Metro level to delegate the responsibility to undertake such licensing to the city level?
Those questions, which I think were quite germane, were unclear. They were especially made unclear by the fact that the proposal that ultimately carried through council -- if members refer to their bill, they will see it there in the clauses -- dealt in the case of buskers with a fairly rigorous and complex procedure for auditioning and standards, among other things. I think it might be appropriate to share with members that there was considerable debate on that section even at the council level as to whether council ought to be engaging in some sort of audition situation with the entertainers and buskers.
When it came around to committee we had in front of us, and it was acknowledged by the city delegation, correspondence that appeared to indicate that indeed the metropolitan level would be prepared to delegate certain of its licensing responsibilities to the city, based on appropriate discussions between the two levels of municipal government and potentially in the field of licensing flower vendors and buskers.
In addition, we had considerable discussion around the question of whether there would be general legislative amendments on licensing that might make some of these aspects and elements easier in the discussions between Metro and the city and achieve the end the city was hoping to achieve, which was some degree of regulation and, in the case of buskers, even some degree of quality control.
I remember well the remarks of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who indicated -- I am paraphrasing him, but I believe I am paraphrasing accurately for intent -- that he had no objection to the concept of general legislation being brought in but that he was somewhat sceptical about the timing of such general legislation. Indeed, he had made reference to debates that may have occurred, perhaps in committee or in this House in days gone by, about general licensing changes being brought in.
He suggested, among other things, that one of the routes that might be followed in this bill would be to provide an approval with a clause that would indicate that, on the passage of general licensing legislation, the general legislation would overtake the more specific. As I recall his concerns, they were based primarily on some scepticism about timing.
As I recall the timing when we were before committee and in discussion, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Wilson Heights, had indicated an intention on the part of the government to introduce such legislation and to deal with it with dispatch but was not in a position to indicate that it had yet been introduced or to be able to forecast any timing.
With the passage of time since the committee decisions on the bill, the general legislation that the parliamentary assistant had referred to has been introduced and is well under way in terms of our procedures here in this House for discussion, consideration and, it is to be hoped, adoption.
8:40 p.m.
I think it is fair and appropriate to say that, to the best of my knowledge, the council of the city of Toronto has not reconsidered this legislation, nor has it commented upon the recommendations that have come forward from the standing committee. Therefore, I am not in a position, nor would I seek to do so, to suggest to the House that there has been any change in the formal request from the council.
However, I would be remiss if I did not share with the members the fact that I have been engaged in numerous discussions with a very large number of council members who have indicated to me that they have been in discussion also with other members of this House, some of whom are on this side and others of whom are on the benches opposite. They indicated that in their opinion, in the scale of matters within the bill, the question of licensing flower vendors and buskers was rather down on the list of priorities of clauses that were there.
The primary focus of concern was on two other sections of the bill which dealt with the city's sesquicentennial and with changes on the votes needed at the council level to overturn certain decisions of the executive committee.
I might say that as recently as about 7:45 this evening, in discussion with a sitting member of the council who has been on council for many years and who participated in the committee that brought forward these sections at the outset, when I made reference to the sections and to my awareness that the parliamentary assistant intended to move the deletion, that member of council could not even recall what the sections were or the purpose for bringing them forward.
It seems to me that many of the cautions that were expressed in committee, notably as they related to the matter of timing and likelihood of general legislation, can be reasonably satisfied at this time by the introduction of the general legislation, by its timing and by the considerations about the matter of delegations downward from the metropolitan level to the city and so forth being included therein.
It seems to me that the likelihood of licensing flower vendors and buskers, at whatever appropriate municipal level in the discussion between the city and Metropolitan Toronto, is well on its way through general legislation and in my view is not needed at this point, as indeed it was thought to have been needed some time ago when the legislation was requested.
I base that on my sitting upon the committee and hearing the debate, and upon what I do freely admit were individual conversations with members of council. I should indicate, however, that I made a particular effort to get around to as many members of council as I could who represented a broad spectrum of views on the matter.
In seeking to look to what I could best understand as a will of council in the absence of a formal statement of the council, it appears to me that a motion to delete these sections would not create a particular problem, particularly in view of the general legislation. Based on those discussions and my understanding in that regard, I would be prepared to see those sections deleted in committee of the whole House and the bill then ordered for third reading.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I sat in on the committee dealing with certain sections of the bill. Perhaps the reason the members of the Toronto council and the mayor wanted to have the bill expedited was that there were three or four other sections of the bill that needed immediate attention. Those sections have already been passed, of course, but they related to the proposed amendment to do away with the two-thirds vote of council to overturn a decision of the executive council. The other concerned the business improvement area and was related to the difficulty the Metro Toronto roads authority had when they wanted to improve or beautify any highway or improvement area. I think that is what they were more concerned about.
They did touch on the bylaws to license street entertainers. The parliamentary assistant mentioned Bill 11, which is pending and which perhaps will be dealt with soon. The delegation from the city of Toronto suggested it might take longer than one month or three weeks; it could be December before legislation can control some of the problems on the streets in Toronto. There are some contentious matters in Bill 11, and I imagine there will be lengthy debates on the drastic changes under that legislation.
I understood that local councils have the authority to control hawkers and pedlars under the Municipal Act, and I suggest the city of Toronto has authority to control anyone selling flowers or street entertainers because they are pedlars selling something and looking for handouts. A musician playing a guitar or singing usually has his guitar case open with 25 cents or a couple of pennies thrown in; so he is soliciting something from the public. Perhaps they do provide some entertainment, but I am sure that could be controlled on Toronto streets now under a pedlars and hawkers act or a bylaw passed by the municipality.
We talk about impeding pedestrian movement on the streets in Toronto, but I do not think too many people will stand up in the House and question the government policy that allows steel fences to be put up around the Westbury Hotel about noon hour, with the result that people have to walk almost to the curb of the street. I cannot understand why the government allows that type of entertainment on the streets but will not allow it on the ball diamond at Exhibition Park.
Mr. Nixon: Tory morality.
Mr. Haggerty: When coming off the bus, I notice there is another area on Bay Street where there is the same thing. We talk about impeding the flow of traffic; that certainly does, and it is usually on every street corner.
While we are talking about policies and the morality of the government, there are times when I question where it is headed. We can have beer and pubs on the main streets in Toronto but not in the ball park in Toronto. That is the area we should be looking at.
There is another problem that concerns me about Bill 11. The parliamentary assistant quoted introductory note 3, "Where a licensing bylaw conflicts with provincial statutes or regulations thereunder, the statute or regulation prevails;" and introductory note 4, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation exempt specified businesses from the operation of municipal licensing bylaws." That is what I am referring to when I talk about allowing pubs on the streets in Toronto.
It gives the government a little too much power, because under Bill 11 it can exempt almost any business in Toronto, regardless of whether the municipality passes a bylaw. That is too much power. We are talking about local autonomy given to councils. I do not think we can have it both ways under Bill 11. I suggest that is what the members of Toronto council were trying to convey to members; they want some control over the streets in Toronto without exemptions.
There is another problem facing a number of municipalities, particularly the city of Niagara Falls, and it has been mentioned on the Toronto radio stations; that is soliciting on the streets. If the government really wanted to do something, it should bring in some law now to control prostitution in every municipality in Ontario, particularly in Niagara Falls and Toronto. I suggest that under Bill 11 the parliamentary assistant should be looking forward to bringing in a bill with some guts in it.
We supported the bill that was before the committee for the reason that we could not wait for Bill 11 to be passed in the Legislature. It could take until December. We have no commitment from this government as to when it will be moving ahead with Bill 11.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak on the last matter raised by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), that of street solicitation. It strikes me that is one area that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) overlooked in his seven per cent sales tax. My God, what a fortune that could bring in.
Mr. Chairman: Order. That is unparliamentary.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thought nothing was sacred any more -- lacking the word for whatever the opposite would be.
An hon. member: It would balance the budget.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, that is possibly true. I rise to speak not only as the member for Scarborough West but also as someone with a good deal of interest in Toronto politics, as the member from the food terminal will know. Tonight, because of this attack on local autonomy by the member for St. George, whom we remember from ward 5 --
Mr. Martel: The radical.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: This attack by the almost radical member from ward 5 on her own council makes me wonder whether I should reconsider again tonight my decision not to enter the fray in the city of Toronto.
Here is someone who proudly brings in a bill in her name, on behalf of her past colleagues from the city of Toronto, to provide powers they have passed in council. Now she is willing to have the member for Wilson Heights -- or, I should say, the member for Wuthering Heights, the Heathcliff of Wuthering Heights -- she is willing to have him come forward to try to decimate this bill, claiming speciously that Bill 11 will replace this in terms of the kinds of powers that have been asked for here.
First he says Bill 11 will look after these matters, which is fine. Then he says that in point of fact those same powers are not in Bill 11. Is he not glad they are not? He surely would not want the elected members of the city of Toronto to have any kind of power under their jurisdictional responsibility. And the member for St. George, from ward 5 past --
Mr. Rotenberg: Do you want the city council members to discriminate?
Mr. Martel: You do that all the time.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The government discriminates. We pass discriminatory legislation here. We want them to have the capacity to control.
Why is it that the member from ward 5 would rise in her place tonight and say that because of things she has heard from individual members of council she is willing to backtrack on the requests from that council, passed as a motion by a democratically elected body? Why would she want to back off from what seems to me to be the provision of licensing control that would bring the kind of control to the situation she and others have raised about the city of Toronto at this time? It does not make sense to me.
When she was a member of Toronto city council she would have been offended, as members of that council often were, by this government's tinkering with legislation that was brought forward, passed democratically there, and done by this government in its wisdom and the strength of its conviction about what it wanted.
I would like to know why the member for St. George believes the things that have been deleted from this section and replaced by Bill 11 give enough power to Toronto. Clearly the reason the member for Wuthering Heights is saying that this, broadly, should be brought in is because it clearly does not give them the same power. That is why he wants it changed. The member for St. George is saying, "It is pretty much the same thing, and they really are not concerned about it."
We are getting doubletalk here. She should be standing firm on what she has been asked to bring forward; or maybe we should go back to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) bringing in the private bills from the city of Toronto, because at least he damned well fought for them.
Mr. Mackenzie: Forgive my suspicious mind, Mr. Chairman, but I have another reason for wondering why the members would like to torpedo the bill that was brought in by the member for what? St. A & P? -- a bill that, incidentally, did pass by a majority in the committee.
My added concern about eliminating this section now is that we do not have Bill 11 yet. I just wonder why the Tories would bypass the opportunity to license all these additional vendors and collect the additional seven per cent sales tax from all the people they could collect from in this deal. I am just suspicious that they missed this golden opportunity to rook a few more people in the province.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: What, again?
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Perhaps I did not phrase my question as I had wanted. I gave a speech, and I really meant to ask a question of the member for St. George. That is --
Mr. Chairman: Member for St. George, you are being solicited.
Ms. Fish: I am the member for St. George, but the member for St. George is not being solicited, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I will rephrase that.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: If you are being solicited, there definitely should be a tax on it.
I wonder if the member would be kind enough to tell me why she thinks there are sufficient powers in Bill 11 to handle the matters that the member for Wuthering Heights very distinctly said would not be covered under Bill 11.
Ms. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to perhaps clarify my point. I appreciate that there is some considerable attempt to demean my efforts to speak with members of council, my willingness to respond to their approaches to me with respect to this bill.
I repeat that I do not confuse the individual conversations with the formal statement of council, but I made every effort to have conversations with as broad a spectrum of council members as possible. In the course of those discussions I was led to believe that the current view, the wish or the will of the council, would be to look to Bill 11 and its operation and to carry this matter forward as part of general legislation rather than special legislation.
I was reviewing for the members some of the questions that had arisen and some of the concerns about timing that had come forward at committee, some of which I think have been touched on this evening. I was certainly not attempting to provide a detailed review of the sections in this bill as against the sections in the general licensing bill, but simply to do my best in good faith to report to members of the House the discussions and my conclusions from them about a willingness on the part of city council members to look to the changes in Bill 11 and to operate under the general legislation in lieu of the more particular legislation that had been sought. That really was the advice or information I was seeking to share with members, since there seemed to be some question.
Again, I recognize that this is informal, but I am sure members opposite themselves also have been approached informally on the matter and will very often, because of constraints of time or circumstance, find it necessary to operate in discussion rather than always through resolution. It was simply an attempt to share the information as best I could. I hoped the committee would see its way clear to coming to a conclusion on the bill and ordering it for third reading so that a number of other clauses in the bill that have some urgency associated with them would be in a position to be carried forward.
9 p.m.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I regret that the member seems to have gone to the Larry Grossman school of question answering. There is a great deal to be said for the succinct response. I do not really feel I got information about the difference between Bill 11 and this bill. I will let that pass.
Let me say gratuitously, but only just gratuitously, that there are many methods to follow to get into the cabinet. One way is to slavishly follow the will of the cabinet and the majority decision of the Tory caucus. Another really good way of doing it is to stand up and show you have some guts and will stand up and fight for something now and then instead of caving in.
I would suggest to the ex-radical member from ward 5 that perhaps she should change her tactics a little bit. Just being a woman from the city of Toronto will not guarantee her a place in the cabinet. You better show some mettle.
Mr. Chairman: That is not on the amendment.
Mr. Foulds: I have some very simple questions either for the member for St. George or the member for Wilson Heights:
When do you expect to get Bill 11 passed?
Would you not agree that Bill 11, particularly section 2, completely ties the hands of municipalities when it comes to licensing? It completely circumscribes their power of licensing and the terms of the licences. Would you not agree that section 2 of Bill 11 circumscribes any independence the municipality might have in getting tax revenues by licensing?
The recent provincial budget has devolved much responsibility on municipalities for paying extra property taxes that will arise because of the sales tax increase by the Treasurer. The least this provincial Tory government could do would be to give the municipalities some authority to raise some extra taxation.
What you are doing in section 2 of Bill 11, as I interpret it, is to completely circumscribe the power of the municipality in terms of licensing. What you are saying is, "We at the provincial level know best about what you should be able to licence, how you can licence it, the hours and locations where you can licence it and the fees you can set for it." Surely that is a complete cop-out and cave-in in view of the much stronger piece of legislation that was incorporated for the municipality of Toronto under section 5.
I would suggest that the kind of clause that is included in section 5 of Bill Pr3, which is before us for discussion, is the kind of clause you should have in Bill 11. What you have is a completely gutted version of clause 5 of this bill which you want to delete, in section 2 of Bill 11. It does not give the municipalities any strength, any independence or any power to do the things you are claiming they can do.
Mr. Rotenberg: Was that a question?
Mr. Foulds: It was a question.
Mr. Rotenberg: It was the intention of the ministry and myself, in consultation with my two critics opposite, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that Bill 11 would have a reasonably quick second reading in this spring session. I do not know if we are going to get to it now because of the opposition filibuster on so many bills. If we get it done --
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I resent that comment, because there has been no filibuster. If you think we are just here to look at a bill and say, "Let it slide," then you are crazy. When you make that sort of accusation would you be kind enough to indicate in specific detail what bills you are talking about and to detail the length of the filibuster. I defy you to produce that because you cannot. If you --
Mr. Chairman: Order. Your point has been made. The member for Wilson Heights.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member is offended I will withdraw the term "filibuster."
Mr. Chairman: Stick to the amendment. Move right along.
Mr. Rotenberg: Some bills are taking a little longer than they took at other times in this House, as with the bill for Muskoka the other night when we dealt with an amendment and then had the same debate over again on the next amendment. I will put that aside.
There was agreement by myself and the two opposition critics to have this bill given second reading this spring session and to send it to committee. I consented, I believe, at the request of both my opposition critics to have this dealt with in a committee over the summer and have it passed and back in this Legislature by fall. That deals with the question of when it was scheduled to be done.
I still hope the House will work out a reasonable length of time so Bill 11 can have reasonably quick second reading in the House and be out to committee, as we did last fall with the Planning Act. I believe the members opposite will indicate there was a good, full and free hearing and debate on the Planning Act because we got it past second reading. That is what I tried to arrange in the true democratic spirit.
As far as the question from the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) is concerned; yes, Bill 11 does restrict the fees on licensing because licensing should not be a method of raising money. That would allow a municipality to impose restrictive fees through licensing and would allow municipalities to discriminate by fees as to who can be in business. Those who have a little more money could be allowed to be in business and those who are struggling to get into the business could be prohibited from getting in by the fees.
It is the same with having certain restrictions on location and hours. We do not feel it is proper under a licensing bill, where there is no appeal to a municipal board as there is under zoning, to allow a municipality to put on certain restrictions by licensing when they should go by zoning.
I am really surprised at the member for Port Arthur and his party. They are always trying to fight for the less fortunate, the underdog, the poor and the new person. I am surprised they would support the sections in this private bill by the city of Toronto which are clearly open to discrimination. They clearly give the city of Toronto power to discriminate between one person in business and another and to favour one person over another. It is these restrictions of the bill that I do not favour. I am surprised the member for Port Arthur would not agree with me.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go to the point on which the parliamentary assistant said a licence is not a method to make money for municipalities. I am looking at the terminology of licensing. The parliamentary assistant should look at some of the licensing practices now carried out through other government agencies. I am thinking particularly of the Nursing Home Act and the licence that applies there.
In many places in small municipalities the people who are now running these operations and residences providing services to the elderly people are being phased out of business. The licence is being purchased by some big operator at $10,000 to $15,000 a bed. A licence is a permit or privilege to be able to operate a motor vehicle or a nursing home, but there should be no value attached to that licence.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant if, when Bill 11 is duly passed by this Legislature and referred to committee as the parliamentary assistant indicates, and when it is amended in that committee by a majority vote, narrow though it may be, do you plan to go through the same charade by referring it to committee of the whole? Will you refer it there where you can gut it again as you have done to this bill after section 5 was passed by a majority in committee?
You have a double standard. What you are saying is, "Trust us." What I am saying is, "We do not trust you." The history is not good. You have betrayed the democratic parliamentary process in committee on the section before us and we suspect very much you will do that to us in the future.
9:10 p.m.
As for the point about the discriminatory ability of a municipality to license, that is of course the Tory view that he expresses, and we recognize that as such. He is saying government people at the provincial level are far more objective and more even-handed in handing out licences that any municipality is going to be.
He is also saying that here at the provincial level they are wise enough to know what the licensing abilities and the licensing requirements are in municipalities as widely spread as Toronto, Timiskaming, Kirkland Lake, Kenora, Dryden and Port Dover. He is saying they cannot do any more than is in section 2 of this bill. This is because those evil municipalities out there, those bad people who are elected at the municipal level, will institute licensing requirements and licensing bylaws that are discriminatory.
What he is displaying is a complete lack of faith in the municipal government system; and frankly, I am ashamed for him.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 stand as part of the bill?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
On section 6:
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I think the same principles apply to sections 5 and 6. In dealing with section 5, I believe we have discussed the principles on both sections. Rather than put a motion where the procedure seems to be analogous, it seems to me we should not vote for section 6.
Interjection.
Mr. Rotenberg: I would ask you to put the question on section 6, and I would ask members to vote against section 6 for the same reason that I advocated voting against section 5.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 stand as part of the bill?
All in favour say "aye."
All against say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Section 6 shall not stand as part of the bill, and the appropriate sections shall be renumbered, according to my understanding.
On section 7, as renumbered:
Mr. Chairman: Shall old section 7 stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Nixon: Somebody should say something about section 7, because the council is in such a state of furore about having the right to organize a sesquicentennial for the city of Toronto.
It seems strange that the Municipal Act does not allow a municipality to organize some nice little celebrations of their own anniversary. Would the parliamentary assistant assure us that other towns and cities that are coming up to substantial celebrations of this type would have the power and the right to go forward under the Municipal Act in something as reasonable as to organize a celebration?
Actually, it seems to me that if the city of Toronto is going to celebrate its 150th anniversary, maybe even this government might deign to either kick in a few bucks or a few ideas. Maybe Mr. Rotenberg would like to be chairman of a committee to recognize the sesquicentennial of Muddy York on behalf of the whole province since we are so proud of this town -- and I really mean that.
But it seems to me the section is redundant. There has to be some footling adviser somewhere who is asking for this section, which obviously we are not going to deny them; but I do not see where the Legislature gets off saying to Toronto, "Yes, you may celebrate your sesquicentennial" -- that absurd word.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, first, I would be more than pleased to organize the sesquicentennial party of the Nixons representing Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I think we are up to about 150 years.
There is no question any municipality can celebrate any anniversary they so choose. The reason the city of Toronto requires private legislation is not to have the celebration, but to set up a board of nonmembers of council, with such a board being able to expend public funds and to set up the terms and conditions of such a board.
The reason for the legislation is to set up this board which will be a semi-public body set up by the council and to have this board able to expend public funds and be subject to city audit and all of the conditions of a public board.
The act is to set up the board, not to have the celebration.
Mr. Chairman: Dealing with all of section 7:
Mr. Foulds: I wonder why the government feels it necessary to have this clause brought in every time a municipality feels it needs to set up such a board, which I assume is a nonprofit organization.
I remember very well when the city of Thunder Bay wanted to establish an authority to run a mall in what is known as the old city of Fort William they had to bring in a private bill to do that. The city has had to amend that private bill twice.
Surely it makes some sense to have it in general legislation. As Bill 11 is going to be brought in to amend the Municipal Act in any event, why not bring in a piece of general legislation that gives municipalities the authority in effect to set up little nonprofit crown corporations?
Is it because that runs against the philosophy of the Conservative government, the Conservative government that has bought into Suncor; that has Ontario Hydro, the largest crown corporation ever assembled in the country? Surely if it is good enough for a Tory government to set up crown agencies, boards and commissions -- so many so that at one time three or four years ago they did not know how many there were -- surely it is acceptable, not only for the municipality of Toronto as outlined in this bill, to be able to set up such a board for one event, this 150th anniversary or birthday or whatever, but that is the kind of power a municipality should have in general legislation, whether it is for this wonderful, marvellous, multicultural city of Toronto or whether it is for a municipality such as that of Shuniah, Dryden, Port Dover, Windsor or Bewdley.
Mr. Rotenberg: Just to respond to the member for Port Arthur, as he knows and all members know, the Municipal Act is a very long, complicated and cumbersome act. The Municipal Act is basically a permissive act. A lot of the matters in the Municipal Act which give general powers to municipalities arise out of requests from municipalities to have further powers.
A lot of them arise when municipalities ask for certain private legislation. When a municipality asks for it and then a second one asks, the ministry says, "Hey wait a minute, that is a good idea, certainly we are giving them the powers and we should adopt it in general legislation."
I think the member for Port Arthur should know -- and certainly those who have been the critics of this ministry will know -- that over the past few years since I have been here in this municipal affairs ministry we have brought a number of things into general legislation, giving general powers arising out of requests from municipalities, from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in general or from individual municipalities.
I think the member for Port Arthur's point is well taken. This is the first time I have seen this type of request in the three years I have been parliamentary assistant to the minister. There may be others, and he has mentioned one of which I was not aware. The point is well taken.
In our review of municipal legislation this will be one of the things we will review. If we can write some general legislation which will encompass reasonably the powers of municipalities to set up these kinds of boards for special celebrations, I think this is something that will be going into the hopper and be forthcoming shortly.
I have no objection. I do not think the ministry has. It is just that the request has not come that frequently and in our legislation, as he can understand, it is somewhat difficult to get our legislative program through all the hoops to get it before the House and passed.
There are a number of requests from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and from the muncipalities generally, to add to their powers and to give them broader powers and more autonomy. We are responding to these as quickly and reasonably as possible. This one will get on the list and in the not-too-distant future there will be some legislation forthcoming, after discussion with AMO and the municipalities, to give them some general powers along this line.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: There are a lot of subsections, 20 to be exact, to section 7. Can I presume that all of section 7 carries?
Section 7, as renumbered, agreed to.
On section 8, as renumbered:
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Oh now you've touched a nerve.
Mr. Chairman: We have something wrong with the title. I knew it; the title is wrong.
Mr. McClellan: Are you trying to hasten us along? I just have a couple of questions for the parliamentary assistant.
Would the parliamentary assistant explain the purposes of clause 8(2)(a).
Mr. Chairman: You are talking about old section 8, as has been pointed out to me now.
Mr. McClellan: Clause old 8(2)(a).
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, in the bill before us section 8 says: "The act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent." I am not too sure what the member is talking about.
Section 8 in the bill before us, which is Bill Pr3, says, "The act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent." That is the reprinted version and that is what is before us.
Mr. McClellan: Has section 8 already been taken out of the act?
Mr. Rotenberg: What was section 8 in the bill the member has before him, which was the bill before the committee, is not before this Legislature at this time.
Mr. McClellan: My goodness, does he mean to tell me I am just at the mercy of whoever puts the bills in our books? Whatever happened to the section on the limitation of election expenditures? Was that deleted in committee?
Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, that was deleted in committee. That section is before the Legislature in general legislation. I do not know what the bill number is. It was introduced several weeks ago and it is our hope that will be dealt with before we rise this spring.
Mr. Chairman: Does that answer your question?
Sections 8 and 9, as renumbered, agreed to.
Bill Pr3, as amended, reported.
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT
Consideration of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: I am curious about what you are going to say. Are you talking to section 1?
Mr. Kennedy: No. Are you starting with section 1?
Mr. Chairman: That is what we usually do.
Mr. Kennedy: It is with respect to section 3, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Maybe we can move right along.
On section 1:
Mr. Nixon: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Parliament of Canada had a major revolt about a bill that encompassed too many concepts in one act. Here, in one section we are dealing with dog control, barbed wire, parking, fill and places of amusement. It seems to me that section 1 is a real dog's breakfast in more ways than one.
I was wondering how the other municipalities have dealt with things like dog droppings without the direct approval of this honourable House and why Mississauga has to have our concurrence in a matter of this import.
Mr. Rotenberg: First, I would indicate that the number of subsections in section 1 were drawn by the city of Mississauga and not by this Legislature. This is a private bill, not drawn by the ministry or by legislative counsel, but by Mississauga.
Mr. Nixon: Then why are you conducting it through the House? Surely you are taking responsibility.
Mr. Rotenberg: I am making comments. You have asked a question. As the honourable member knows, I am sure --
Mr. Nixon: You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Rotenberg: As the member knows, I am sure, the general responsibility for municipal private bills is under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr. Martel: But these are private bills. Why do you not deal with these in committee?
Mr. Chairman: Okay. You are finished? Let us carry on. Any further discussion on section 1?
Mr. Martel: Before you start, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what is going on. If they are going to deal with private bills the place to deal with them is in committee. And they did; they messed it up, and now they come up here and they start to play around. Why not send it back to the private bills committee? Or can you not get the votes you want down there? You certainly outnumber the opposition, so what are we going through these shenanigans for in this forum? We have wasted now an hour and 25 minutes on something that should have been cleared up in committee. If you blew it in committee that is not my fault.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.
Mr. Martel: This is very unusual. When my friend says it is up to the parliamentary assistant dealing with municipal affairs to present private bills, that is something new. I have been here longer than you --
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East, order. Order. Cut the mike. Thank you.
Mr. Martel: It is just a shemozzle.
Mr. Chairman: I cannot solve that problem. What am I supposed to do? I am just trying to run this through the committee of the whole House.
We are dealing with section 1. Is there any further discussion? Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Interjection.
Mr. Chairman: Oh.
Mr. Haggerty: Why do you not move your chair back a little bit? Perhaps you will see every member here, Mr. Chairman. Or get different glasses with wider lenses or something.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Haggerty: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk raises a valid point about a bill that has four or five pieces of general legislation in it. Under section 1 the municipality has the authority to pass a bylaw that prevents dogs from running at large. I think that should be pretty well covered under a special bylaw, because under that dog control bylaw they have to leash the dog, buy a licence for it and --
Mr. Nixon: And they have to scoop.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, this is the stoop-and-scoop bill, is it not?
Mr. Rotenberg: Do you see anything wrong with it?
Mr. Haggerty: But I bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes with these private members' bills there is already legislation they can expand on without coming before the Legislature here to incorporate it in another omnibus bill.
Interjection.
Mr. Haggerty: You've got it.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment to section 3? The member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Martel: Why is the member who is carrying it presenting the motion now? You see? You are playing around with all the rules.
Mr. Chairman: Is that a point of order?
Mr. Kennedy: With respect --
Mr. Martel: Not with respect. Nonsense. He was the one who moved the amendments on the former bill.
Mr. Kennedy: With respect, anyone is allowed to comment on a bill.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order. I had recognized the member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Haggerty: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martel: What kind of silly bill are you skating over there?
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Mississauga South, we have a point of order from the member for Erie.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, you are kind of cutting the ice, is right; you are skating through everything. I bring to your attention that when you go down a bill you go "clause (a), carried; (b), (c)." I was going to get into (d) of section 1 there, but it stopped someplace. That is where the matter of "regulating the parking on highways, or any part thereof, within residential zones in the municipality of vehicles, or any class thereof, having a gross vehicle weight, as shown on the permit for the" --
Mr. Chairman: Member for Erie, I am at your mercy. I am most accommodating but I would like to think it was carried.
Mr. Haggerty: I want to bring a valid point to you. You are talking about 3,000 kilograms. If we are looking into the area of metric weights and measures, there are about two different approaches you can take to metric weights. I bring to your attention that I think we should have stated in there that 3,000 kilograms equals -- what? Two thousand pounds? It would have been nice to be able to say in the bylaw that it equals 2,000 pounds, because many people do not know what 3,000 kilograms are. I am sure the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) would support me on this.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. McKessock: As a point of clarification on the 3,000 kilograms, this was well aired in committee. We certainly agreed that the municipality should have the right to pass bylaws to take care of the dog-droppings and barbed wire; also the parking of trucks on the streets. The 3,000 kilograms would be about 6,000 pounds, which would mean a three-ton truck. They are not being prohibited from stopping on the streets for a short time, but they are not to be parked overnight. It was agreed that three-ton trucks cannot be left on the streets for any length of time.
On section 3:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kennedy moves that section 3 should not stand as part of the bill, and that sections 4 and 5, therefore, should be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Kennedy: With respect to that amendment, the ministry feels the municipality now has adequate powers under the Planning Act. In regard to this section, I visited with the council which ultimately gave consideration to the request for the deletion. I was informed yesterday it was quite agreeable to them, but they did wish the rest of the bill to be processed.
Mr. Nixon: So there was a little bit of blackmail.
Mr. Kennedy: No, we had a discussion.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the matter was discussed in some detail in committee, but I cannot recall that council wanted it deleted at that particular time, because it dealt with video games and the problem they are causing throughout not only Mississauga but other municipalities, and on how to control these game shops, particularly in relation to their closeness to school grounds. The reason they wanted this particular section in here was in order to give residential zones some quiet and peace and not have a number of youngsters there at all hours of the night playing video games and causing a disturbance in the community. They wanted to restrict locations to defined areas of the municipality.
I cannot understand why the member would stand up tonight and say he does not support it when there are difficulties within a number of municipalities. I thought this was a steppingstone, and many other municipalities would be applying similar legislation or bylaws controlling outlets of this nature. I think it is time municipalities had a right to control what may be considered a nuisance in a number of municipalities. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant said this was going to come under Bill 11, or he was going to bring in special legislation.
Mr. Nixon: No way.
Mr. Haggerty: No way. In other words, these game shops are going to be allowed to run rampant in municipalities, without any control. I would like to get the attention of the parliamentary assistant. I thought he said some new legislation was coming in that would give tighter controls to municipalities for this type of outlet, because it is blanket coverage across the board. I understood from the representation made by the city of Mississauga it was a rather important piece of legislation, particularly section 3 of the bill, which was most important.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed. First of all, I believe my friend from Mississauga said that today the council finally indicated it was prepared to accept what his ministry wanted. I do not have a copy of that motion. Until this very moment, I had no knowledge they were going to try to delete a section in Bill Pr7.
Mr. Nixon: They are voting against it.
Mr. Martel: Just a moment. It had gone through committee with approval. For whatever reason, the government started to lean on Mississauga a little. Today my friend tells me that, having met with them, he found out the council was prepared to accede to the minister's request.
Mr. Nixon: He threatened them with no bill at all.
Mr. Martel: I believe what my friend tells me. We sit in opposition as we are supposed to, without a copy or an indication of what the government's intentions are.
Mr. Rotenberg: You had that motion. That motion was filed on Tuesday. The critic had it.
Mr. Martel: I have not seen it.
Mr. Rotenberg: The critic had it.
Mr. Martel: My friend just said the council finally acceded to the request today.
Mr. Kennedy: Not today.
Mr. Martel: That is what he said. Go back and check Hansard. I listened carefully and I am glad my friend tells me the council has indicated it is finding it acceptable. What I find strange is that we are going through these shenanigans tonight on something that has gone through committee and was accepted in committee. Now you are changing the name of the game without council coming back before the committee to indicate to all parties that it finds it acceptable or that it does not find it acceptable.
This is a new wrinkle that I find more than a little distasteful. I am almost prepared to stand the bill down until we get confirmation in writing from the council that it is prepared to accept it.
I find the whole procedure here this evening more than a little disturbing. I have checked with my friend from the Windsor area who has been here about the same number of years as I have and I cannot recall this sort of procedure. I am sorry but I cannot. I also cannot remember somebody telling me the parliamentary assistant carries bills. Who carries a bill with respect to the Attorney General? Is it his parliamentary assistant who carries a private bill if there should be one?
The whole thing is crazy. Sections approved by committee have been deleted on both bills and we are really not in a position either to support or condemn. We do not know what the reactions are of the municipalities. It is a bad scene. We are simply not in a position to confirm it. I accept my friend's word, but I would feel much more comfortable if the critic responsible for this deal had an opportunity to phone the solicitor for Mississauga and ask: "Did they lean on you, and how hard did they lean on you? Was it accepted willingly?" I suspect they were told either to remove the section or they would not get the bill through.
Mr. Kennedy: No.
Mr. Martel: You tell me, "No," but I cannot confirm it at this 11th hour. You got it through committee. That is where it should have been dealt with, not here, tonight. That is why we have a committee for private bills. You are playing games with both of these bills tonight. You can give me all the assurances in the world and it does not matter a tinker's damn. There is a committee to deal with it. If you could not carry the vote, that is not my fault.
You should take it back there and deal with the bill properly. You do not make a mockery of everything in here just to suit your own fancy. It is a dangerous precedent. It should not be tolerated and I would ask you to so rule, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point, if I may.
Mr. Chairman: We are not talking about any point. We are just talking about section 3 being deleted.
Mr. Nixon: Then I will speak to the section, if that is all right. It is not a motion to delete. Have we got that settled?
Mr. Chairman: That it shall not stand as part of the bill.
Mr. Nixon: Right.
Mr. Martel: It is not acceptable.
Mr. Nixon: He is voting against it. He is not moving that it not stand as part of the bill. Is that right? There is no motion before you other than the section.
Mr. Chairman: That is right.
Mr. Nixon: There is a precedent for what has happened, certainly. I think the member for Mississauga South would remember it because it had to do with a private bill dealing with the University of Toronto.
9:40 p.m.
I can well recall when the arguments were put in the private bills committee, as it then was, that there actually be a student on the board of the university. That was absolutely unthinkable. But the argument was put so strongly by a couple of very effective students, at the time, now defeated NDP candidates, that it was agreed by the committee that a certain number of students under specific circumstances be put on the board.
It came back. The Minister of Colleges and Universities found that unacceptable and when the bill was reported to the House, he directed it to the committee of the whole House and undertook the arguments which resulted in the reversal of the position that a student be on the board.
It is interesting to note that the following year, the government saw the usefulness of having students on the board and brought in its own legislation. There is precedent for the procedure, but under those circumstances it was, I suppose, a matter of high policy. If it is a matter of high policy that we deal with dog do and stringing barbed wire, and stuff like that, it is an indication of how the management of public affairs by the Conservative Party over 40 years has disintegrated.
The point has been well made by the member for Sudbury East. There is a clearly understood procedure: The bills are given first reading. The parliamentary assistant seems to have all the legislative responsibility for these matters. We never see his minister around here at all. He has, I suppose, the right and the responsibility to read the bills when they are introduced -- and they sit around in the book for a good long time.
If there is a problem, the minister could go to the member from the area -- after all, these are private bills -- and say: "Will you check on this? The government does not like this."; or, "I as the parliamentary assistant am recommending to the cabinet that we bring in general legislation" and so on. Quite often those things can be either withdrawn or amended by the parliamentary assistant actually reading the bill before he comes into the House to deal with it, or at least until it is dealt with in the committee.
Certainly there are members here who can recall that the private bills committee always commanded the attendance of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who sat with one official and commented on each bill as it came forward. I am talking about the highly respected Wilf Spooner, who did not come in and say, "This must not pass or John Robarts or Leslie Frost will have a conniption fit." He simply indicated the reasons that the specific sections should not pass.
His own colleague would usually follow his advice. As a matter of fact, opposition members considered his views with a great deal of respect indeed. Perhaps we did not follow his advice quite as often as his political colleagues did, but he would give his best shot in that committee, and then the committee would vote -- surprisingly on quite a nonpartisan basis.
I can well recall one occasion when it was his opinion that stopped Ballard's predecessor from building an overhang on Maple Leaf Gardens into Wood Street, when everybody in the Tory party and a lot of people in the opposition parties were quite anxious to have it happen because there would have been a lot of new gold seats and they figured they might get on the short list to buy them. It was Spooner who said that this was an unnecessary encroachment on a public right of way. And, by golly, that section did not pass, although it had previously been supported on all sides.
My point is this: The parliamentary assistant has the special responsibility to represent the view of the government at the private bills committee. If he cannot satisfy a majority of members of the committee that he is right then, I agree with the member for Sudbury East, the process of bringing it back here and applying special and unnecessary, really unacceptable pressures, on the council concerned to withdraw or at least not object to the withdrawal of certain sections, does not do a great deal of honour to the representatives of the government so concerned.
The city of Toronto is very anxious to have approval for this board to conduct its sesquicentennial. It did not want anything to interfere with that and it was quite prepared to give up the licensing powers so that it could get at least something it considered essential.
I suppose it is the same for Mississauga on this particular bill. It wants the right to pass its dog bylaws and all the rest, but if the government says, after it has been through the procedures of the committee, it cannot have a bylaw that will restrict the location of video game houses and stuff like that, I suppose council members figure, "We will have to settle for what we can get." I used the word "blackmail." I can imagine the people going back to the council and saying, "Look, you can have the easy part, but if you stick out for the other, you won't get anything."
I would say to the member for Mississauga South, "Don't kid me." I have known him for a long time; there is not a straighter person, in every respect, in the Legislature. There is no doubt about that. He would say, "Look, you are not going to get that section and don't object." I really feel that it is rather cruel and unusual to put the honourable member in such peculiar circumstances. The whole thing should have been worked out in the committee. That point has been made clearly.
The government puts its best shot. For heaven's sake, it commands a majority of the members there. They listened to all the arguments and somebody in the Tory party, if not all of them, must have rejected those arguments and voted for the inclusion of this section. The government members come into the House and people are assigned on a roster basis to sit here, sign their mail, read their newspapers and do all that stuff, knowing that when the vote comes, the government whip can ring a bell and they will all come out of the woodwork and vote, "Ready, aye, ready." They say: "Gee, we cannot have Mississauga having the power to direct their video games. That's terrible."
The process is broken down, and I must say to the parliamentary assistant that, in the absence of the minister -- that phrase we hear so much -- it is his responsibility and he has shirked it; he has given it off. It is now in the hands of the honourable member who lounges in the far seat there -- any further and he would be right out. He is the guy who should have done a better job on these bills. I really do not like the process.
The chairman is getting very worked up. He feels we are wasting time.
Mr. Chairman: Right, we are wasting time. Are you finished?
Mr. Nixon: No, I am not finished. "Cut off his microphone." That is the order he gave to some other member here. Good Lord, what will be next? All right, but I am just telling you this: if you think we are wasting time, I do too.
This should have been finished in the committee and, if the committee voted to include that after the government made its argument, then it should be democratic enough and have a commitment to local autonomy, both in the municipality and in the committee, to realize that it is the will of the community, the will of the Legislature, and it should not be reversed by this artificial application of the majority, which the government is prepared to wield under these circumstances.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure honourable members that there were no deep, dark reasons, such as those that have been attributed to this motion, as to why this section should not be included in the bill. I am aware of how it went through committee but, unfortunately, it was not possible for me to be there.
As I indicated earlier, the reason for the motion is that section 3 of the bill is redundant. Both the city of Toronto and the municipality of Scarborough have bylaws that control the operation of places of amusement, as is included in the section here, so in this respect it is redundant.
Not only that, but some honourable members may know this was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. I will just quote a couple of lines from the 0MB decision with respect to the capacity of the bylaws of the city of Toronto and the municipality of Scarborough to control the operation of places of amusement. In support of this assertion, the board quoted a 1979 court decision that stated:
9:50 p.m.
"Under section 35(1) of the Planning Act, authority is clearly given to a municipality to prohibit the use of lands for any purpose so defined or to prohibit the use of lands generally except where such purposes are expressly authorized. Therefore, the city has the power to prohibit any industry or any use and to single out one use over others if it so desires. That power is subject to the approval of the OMB. It is not open to a court to determine whether the exercise of the power of the city was reasonable or not. For the same reason, I am of the opinion that the city has the power to discriminate against one section of an industry as opposed to another."
The point is that the authority is clearly given under that section of the Planning Act to control it; so the section becomes redundant.
Regrettably, I could not be in committee that day, and that is the reason for bringing this forward. I certainly support our municipality and others having the power for this control. There is no way I would not support the city in this. That is why I said to them: "We have a problem of redundancy and duplication. What are your wishes?"
Mr. Nixon: Nobody over there read it. Only you saw it.
Mr. Kennedy: I cannot answer for what happened in the committee. That is the reason.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, my friend illustrates the problem. He has the material before him, and that material should have been presented in the appropriate arena, the committee, so members would have had that material before them. One considers the bill, on that point, on that material. I strongly resent that we are here in an improper forum considering a private bill.
It is a simple matter to refer it back to the private bills committee, have them look at it and make a determination. They can then come into the House and simply get third reading. It is up to the committee that is reviewing a whole bill and knows the contents of that bill to make the decisions. What are we going to do? Are all private bills going to come up here now in this fashion? From here on in, every time --
Mr. Nixon: Bud needs a researcher all to himself.
Mr. Martel: He could certainly use one or two. You are tripping over the staff over there as you try to get to your office door, and yet you cannot even come in here prepared. It is just silly to do this with private bills. We have spent almost two hours on something that should have gone through in about two minutes, third reading of bills.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: This is like the orphan who murdered his father and mother and then claimed welfare on the basis that he was an orphan; you're doing all the talking.
Mr. Martel: With that response, I would move that we rise and report and send this back to the appropriate committee.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You cannot move that we rise and report.
Mr. Martel: I certainly can. You had better check.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East has put the question that the committee rise and report.
Mr. Nixon: Can't you settle this with fisticuffs or something? Trudeau had a really good idea there. How about withdrawing that and making some other insults for a while and then we will carry the thing?
Mr. Martel: I do not want to be insulted.
Mr. Nixon: I know, but don't move that. We don't want to ring the bells now.
Mr. Chairman: May I implore the member for Sudbury East? A few more insults and we will carry on.
Mr. Martel: Are you sorry, Bud? He's not sorry.
Mr. Chairman: One more time.
Mr. Martel: I will withdraw my motion.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the explanation of the member for Mississauga South with regard to the withdrawal of this section. It is not redundant. I suggest this section is different from the general legislation, whether we are talking about the Planning Act or the Municipal Act.
Mr. Cooke: The parliamentary assistant knows it.
Mr. Swart: Yes, and he knows it very well. This section refers to passing "bylaws prohibiting the location of places of amusement, or any class or classes thereof, on land abutting residential zones ..." If there is a commercial area and it abuts a residential zone, one cannot be selective in that commercial area and say you cannot have this amusement arcade immediately adjacent to a residential zone. You can put it in there any place.
Sure, you can zone your municipality. You can determine what you will have in a particular commercial zone or whatever the case may be, but you cannot say you can have that in only one section of that zone. So this goes further than the general Planning Act does.
I suggest that we have to look a little bit further for the proposed withdrawal of this section than just the fact that it is redundant. There are many municipalities that would like to have this kind of legislation so they would have some kind of control over abutting properties. I suggest that is the exact reason that you do not want this to go through at this time: because it will set a precedent. It goes further than any general legislation you have at present, whether it is the Planning Act or the Municipal Act.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the member for Welland-Thorold has covered the points I was going to suggest to you and the members.
We did have representation from the public. A social worker appeared before the committee, and he showed some deep concerns about the amusement arcades, in particular the video games, that are close to the schools. He thought that they would have a serious impact upon a youngster's education and that the hours spent in there should be spent in the classroom.
Looking at this section, all it says is, "The council of the corporation may, in addition to its powers under paragraph 6 of section 232 of the Municipal Act, pass bylaws prohibiting the location of places of amusement, or any class or classes thereof, on land abutting residential zones in the municipality or defined areas thereof or for restricting the location to defined areas of the municipality."
I raised the matter about zoning and restricted area bylaws that enable a municipality to introduce and apply certain restrictions on certain lands. In this circumstance, the impression I got from representations made to the committee was that these are existing commercial buildings or some buildings that may be vacant, where somebody wants to move in and set up shop. People may not realize the type of shop or the type of business that is opening up, and the first thing you know it is an amusement arcade. Sometimes they are not too well accepted in certain residential areas. It causes some difficulties with residential areas.
The problem is that there is no way of controlling these amusement arcades. The municipality definitely indicated they wanted to have some control over them. I thought section 3 would give this municipality the right to control such amusement outlets. Other municipalities that are having difficulties with bringing these types of amusement games under control could use this as a stepping stone to follow the same principle of this private bill.
I supported it, and I still think it is important that it should remain in the bill. I still cannot follow the reasoning put forward by my friend the member for Mississauga South. The intent is good and it should remain in there unless the government or the parliamentary assistant can come up with some other measure to give municipalities the right to control such outlets within a municipality.
It is a problem across all of Ontario. Some regulation is required. This section would give it to them. It is good. It does not say that "they shall" but that "they may," and where a problem arises within that municipality, even under a rezoning bylaw or a restricted area bylaw, they would still have the opportunity to come forward with this section to apply some rules to the game. I suggest that it is good and that we should carry it.
10 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Kennedy's motion that section 3 not remain as part of the bill will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4, as renumbered, agreed to.
Bill Pr7, as amended, reported.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I move the committee rise and report.
Mr. Chairman: What are we doing?
Mr. Rotenberg: We have another bill in committee, Bill 9.
DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA ACT (CONTINUED)
On section 4:
The Deputy Chairman: This is Bill 9, an Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act. We were on section 4, with an amendment on the floor that had been moved by Mr. Epp. It has been moved; so we are in the process of discussing that amendment. To refresh the members' memories, the amendment reads:
"I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:
"4(1) Subsection 7(1) of the said act is amended by striking out "or any other person" in the fourth line; and
"Subsection 7(2) of the said act is repealed; and
"Subsection 7(3) of the said act is amended by inserting, after 'chairman' in the sixth line, 'from among the members of the district council.'"
Mr. Epp further moved that sections 4 to 14 of the bill as printed be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, we spent considerable time on the second reading of this bill discussing the issue of whether the regional chairman should be an elected person. There certainly was agreement on this side of the House that that person should be elected, and I and five, six or seven of my colleagues stood up to speak against the proposal in the bill that would continue the option of that person being an elected or an appointed person.
Now we have come to the bottom line. It is exceedingly important; if we believe in this principle of democracy, if we believe that the most important person in the municipal government should be elected by at least part of that regional municipality or district municipality, then we have to support this amendment.
It is really almost that simple. Do we really believe in accountability of people who are spending the public funds and making the decisions in municipalities? I and my party say yes, and we are going to be supporting this amendment.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, as this is a government bill, and I am carrying it for the minister, I hope it is okay that I speak to the amendments.
As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) pointed out so well, we had a full discussion on this matter on Tuesday evening. There are three amendments by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), all of which deal with the same principle, which is that the chairman of a regional council, in this case Muskoka, shall be a member of council and cannot be a person who is not a member of council, and that if a member of council is appointed as chairman, he must retain his seat.
As I said, we had a full debate on this. I think we went through the issues thoroughly on section 3 and again on section 4. I simply indicate that all the arguments that were made on Tuesday night still obtain, and I urge the House to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say something in response to a comment made by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) when we were debating this matter previously. He is right: there are three amendments to the bill, all aimed at making the chairman of a regional government an elected person -- not necessarily elected at large but as having stood for election in some capacity.
The member for Welland-Thorold very properly pointed out that in the good old days of minority government an amendment, perhaps put forward by himself, had not carried when it could have done in the minority situation if we in the Liberal Party had supported him. I can well recall the occasion, because it broke my blooming heart that we did not support the amendment. I am very glad he is supporting it tonight.
In response to an exchange in the previous private bills, it was brought to our attention forcefully that the bill, which contained certain substantial improvements in grants payable to regional governments for specific purposes, including policing and certain other things, I believe, would not go forward if such an amendment were appended.
Without describing in any detail the discussions that went into the decision of our party not to support the amendment, it was based on a threat; and I am not particularly proud of our response to it. The threat came not from this parliamentary assistant but from one of his predecessors; it was that the bill could not go forward with all the advantages it contained as far as the grants were concerned.
I used the phrase "blackmail" in reference to the government's action on the previous bill. I suppose it was a bit strong, yet it is not the first time that the government has used that procedure. I am not at all proud of the fact that our caucus in its judgement decided that the bill on its other merits should not be destroyed simply by supporting the basis of the election of the chairman.
I thought that bit of a footnote to the indications of the member for Welland-Thorold was appropriate, since I recall the situation very well indeed. Frankly, I think we should have taken the risk.
However, this amendment is supported by both opposition parties. I regret that the government has not changed its policy in this connection. I predict that, in the remaining few months of their jurisdiction, it will.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think a footnote to the footnote is required. I also remember that occasion very distinctly, and I must say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that this reason was not given at that time.
I remember very distinctly the member for Waterloo North saying that they were not going to bring this in by the back door and that the intent of the amendment by the government at that time was not to deal with the election of the chairman and that they were bringing in their own at some later date. Not once at that time was the suggestion made that there had been blackmail or threats.
There were no such threats made to this party at that time. I am rather glad now to have this confession from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and I take it at face value, but I wish that when they had the opportunity, and a minority government, they had stated publicly the kind of tactics that were being used by the government, instead of giving some other excuse.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 4 agreed to.
10:10 p.m.
On section 5:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Eakins, on behalf of Mr. Epp, moves that section 5 of the bill as printed be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"5(1) Subsection 10(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'some person' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof 'a member of the district council.'
"5(2) Subsection 10(2) of the said act is amended by striking out 'who may be one of the members of the district council or any other person' in the fourth, fifth and sixth lines and inserting in lieu thereof 'from among the members of the district council.'
"5(3) Subsection 10(3) of the said act is amended by striking out 'person' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof 'a member of the district council.'"
And that subsections 5(1) and (2) of the bill as printed be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, we state again publicly our party's support of this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 9 reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments and one bill without amendment.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Dean moved, on behalf of Hon. Miss Stephenson, second reading of Bill 46, an Act to Amend the Education Act.
Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few introductory remarks concerning this bill. It is an omnibus bill containing a number of items on administrative and housekeeping legislation which are required to bring the Education Act in line with the legislation that has been enacted by other ministries with some federal government procedures, new regulations, amendments to existing regulations and so on.
Briefly, the terms in the bill can be summarized under certain headlines:
Trustee remuneration: This arises as a result of a recent study on the role of the trustee with which many of the members of the House are no doubt familiar. The proposal is that, commencing with the school boards elected this year, the trustee remuneration will be determined by the local board. The outgoing board will determine the level of remuneration for the incoming board members, including the chairman.
A second section of general interest concerns adult basic education which contains an enabling provision permitting school boards to provide educational programs in basic literacy and numeracy for adults, not only by providing them directly themselves but also through agreements with colleges of applied arts and technology. This recognizes that some colleges are already active in this area. There are some clarifications of duties of school boards, appointments to committees, acquisition of land for natural science programs, meetings, dissolution and so on.
There are some provisions about elections of trustees and the removal of an inconsistency, a number of redundant words already provided for in the Municipal Elections Act, limiting the ability of a municipal council to divide a municipality into areas for election of trustees, and clarification of residence qualifications. In line with what has already been passed by this House, there is also a provision for the term of office of trustees to be for the same period and for the same time as municipal councillors.
In the area of visa students, that is, students who are not citizens of the country but are studying here on a visa, there is a provision to require boards to charge gross fees when they enrol these students, including persons who are in the country as visitors. The rationale is that the people of Ontario should not be required to subsidize the education of such pupils.
There are some agreements relating to the education of our native people, because of changes in the way of operation of the federal government, which will permit some Indian bands to manage their own affairs financially. The amendments would permit boards of education to enter into agreements directly with Indian bands, instead of only with the crown.
There are several amendments dealing with language advisory committees, and one dealing with the languages instruction commission. There are a number of powers outlined for the minister in the making of regulations regarding teachers, activities of a board, fees for teachers' qualification cards, and so on. There are other powers of the minister authorized by this legislation to delegate certain powers in writing, dealing with the status of pupils who are in work experience programs, approving courses for attendance counsellors, and so on.
There are some more or less housekeeping regulations about schools for the blind and the deaf, a number regarding school attendance requirements, some concerning powers of supervisory officers, and the requirement that the chief executive officer of a board submit an annual report to his board. There are some other general housekeeping matters related to deemed district municipalities regarding taxes in those areas; clarifying the purpose of special meetings of rural separate school boards regarding school sites; voting procedures at the same kinds of boards; an accounting procedure change for transportation; and some correction of references to grades. There is one important matter ensuring that no rateable property is exempt from school taxes through a municipal bylaw, and a minor one concerning the length of the school year.
These provisions in the bill, most of which, as I have said, are of a housekeeping and a cleanup nature, are important to bring the Education Act up to date. I would ask all members of the House to consider carefully and support the bill.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the conclusion. Sometimes one has to be careful when a parliamentary assistant or minister gets up and says that items contained in a bill are of a housekeeping nature. However, in this case I would say the overwhelming majority of the provisions of Bill 46 are indeed of a housekeeping nature. Nevertheless they do point to a certain direction on the part of this government, as do most bills that are introduced into this House, and give an indication of a direction or a slant the government is adopting in a particular field. This is certainly true in education.
Just touching on some of the items the parliamentary assistant has brought to our attention as some of the more important provisions of this bill, we look at items such as trustee remuneration. Many of us have wondered for years why members of municipal councils have been permitted to set their own salaries over a period of time. In fact, they can set a change in salary to come into effect at any time. Why do they have that freedom and members of boards of education do not? We in this party feel it is in keeping with the kind of local autonomy that we believe in.
10:20 p.m.
We think it is a guarded step. If one examines the legislation carefully, as we will once we get into committee, we recognize that a change upwards in remuneration could take place only near the end of a term since it is to be set for the beginning of the new term, for the group that takes office as a result of a municipal election. That will now mean every three years.
With that safeguard the government feels it can allow boards of education to take that one small step. One has to wonder even if it is really necessary to allow increases only at that time because ultimately the electors of a particular area will make judgement on whether the trustees in a specific case have made the right decision. But we feel it is supportable and one of the main items contained in this bill.
I note with a good deal of interest that at any time during the term of office of the board of education the trustees may reduce the salary. However, they may increase it only for the next group coming in. Many of those who are concerned about politicians at all levels advancing their level of pay or benefits which arise from serving in that office would be happy to see that safeguard applied by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).
I suppose we could get into a long debate on adult basic education if we wanted to. There will be some notes made of that. I look at it in terms of basic education and say that the minister has made a movement away from providing what I feel are some reasonable educational opportunities to those outside the regular stream in the system, by drastically reducing the funding for continuing education.
While this touches only a little bit on that, it is nevertheless worthy of note that now this is contained in this bill the minister has, in effect, emasculated continuing education. This has ramifications far beyond what many have anticipated. It is not just the people who are taking jewellery engraving in the high school at night who are affected by this. There are many summer school programs of a noncredit nature for elementary school students which might disappear.
There are, as well, those programs involving folk arts councils and ethnic services which may fall by the wayside unless the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) is prepared to fund them to the same degree as in the past. At least we have had an undertaking from him that he will evaluate that and will provide some funding.
As for other areas, the term of office is a foregone conclusion. We could go through the arguments about why the term of office should stay at two years or go to three years. The fact of the matter is that this Legislature has approved legislation which permits a three-year term for those who are members of municipal councils. To have a different term for members of boards of education would be foolish. They have enough trouble at the present time mustering sufficient interest in municipal elections without fragmenting those elections in such a way as to have them occur in a different year.
In addition to this, one would presume that those matters which must be looked after by municipal councils are somewhat similar in nature to those matters which must be looked after as to boards of education. In this case, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose, although I have some reluctance about a three-year term.
When I sat on a municipal council that was a great aim. It is pretty self-serving to think that but none of us really likes to go back to the electorate that often. It is a wonderful nuisance that we have, those things called elections. But when it comes to evaluating, simply as a member of the public I would say that the two-year term would have been preferable. But this Legislature has made its decision. I think it is only reasonable that this bill dovetails with the municipal elections for offices in area municipalities, county councils and regional councils.
The fee for visa students is obviously a reaction by the government in a time of economic difficulty. We see the same thing happening at the post-secondary education level. When we have difficulty, when we have high unemployment, when we have reduced opportunities for people, we all get flak from our constituents about "Why are you providing this for people offshore who come into this country when my son or daughter cannot have the same opportunity?"
I suppose you can say that to a certain extent it is retrenchment, but certainly if the government were to take a poll of the people -- and the members opposite are well known for the polls they take -- they would find this provision would probably be greeted by many people in this province with a good deal of cheering.
As for the powers of the minister and the delegation of those powers, that is pretty routine stuff.
The school attendance requirements are of interest to me as a former teacher. My former leader would curse me this evening for mentioning it, but I often thought that we moved in a different direction, to say the least, when we started to talk about attendance counsellors and spent a lot of time analysing why students were not there.
I guess it is useful to study and analyse that. But it seems to me we got into a position where we were fiddling around too long attempting to analyse the students and were not spending enough time ensuring those students who were out of school for various reasons, and were of the legal age, were required to be in school; and many could gain some benefit even though obviously in some cases their hearts were not there. Specific provisions are made for early leaving for students who simply cannot function within the regular school system.
It seems to me the suggestions that have been made with respect to school attendance requirements and the obligations of parents or guardians in this regard are positive steps. It is a general lessening of the stringency of our regulations when we do not enforce them; it is the general permissive attitude that permeates our society.
A former director of education who was eventually with the Education Relations Commission, Roger Allen, who has provided a good deal of service to education over the years, often said in his speeches that it is difficult to run a hard school system in a soft society. Nevertheless I always thought the school system was one place where we could attempt to maintain some kind of standards, to perhaps be a little stronger in the enforcement of those things we feel are right in society as a whole, and that we might lead society instead of simply reflecting it. I am pleased to see those kinds of requirements added with respect to attendance at school.
The other general housekeeping items I will not comment on. There is one that is of particular concern to me, which is not housekeeping in my view, and that is a provision which ensures that no ratable property is exempt from school taxes through municipal bylaw. Once again, those of us who have served on local councils would recognize that our municipalities from time to time have exempted groups such as the Young Men's and Young Women's Christian Associations from municipal taxes with the view that a fine service is provided by that organization and that it was worthy of receiving a tax exemption.
I know the parliamentary assistant will say, as many do in the field of municipal affairs -- he has had long experience in municipal affairs; and I believe that my city, if I recall correctly, does what the parliamentary assistant might suggest -- that a municipality should provide a grant in lieu. In other words, instead of granting an exemption the city would provide a grant that would have equalled that exemption.
This is one way of doing it, but in many municipalities it might leave the YM-YWCA and other worthwhile charitable groups high and dry because of an unsympathetic council. It is my view that it would be a step backwards. I see the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) here, and I know she is very supportive of volunteer groups in our society. She would probably agree with my contention that it would be desirable to continue to allow the possibility within municipalities of exemption from property taxes.
Mr. Speaker: I direct the honourable member's attention to the clock.
On motion by Mr. Bradley, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.