Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs. Scrivener: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to pay tribute to Professor Eric Arthur, who died yesterday and who is being laid to rest this afternoon.

He was a famous architect, historian, conservationist and writer and was world renowned for his professionalism and excellence in his chosen field. His opinion was highly respected, and he was much sought after for his views on a great range of architectural and urban design matters. For instance, he was consultant to many governments both in Canada and abroad. He was one of the founders of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario; he was appointed University College architect in 1964 and was chairman of the jury of the international competition for Toronto's city hall and square.

As professor emeritus of the school of architecture, University of Toronto, and through his writings, teachings and personal influence, Professor Arthur did much to raise the level of public consciousness of the importance of our historic buildings and landmarks as part of our national heritage. For a time he served the Speaker of this Legislature and the government of Ontario as architectural consultant on the special requirements of this great parliament building in which we convene today.

Born and educated in New Zealand, he served as a youth in the First World War as a rifleman with the New Zealand Rifle Brigade. He also saw active service in the Second World War. After the First World War he was honoured to be chosen the Lord Kitchener National Memorial Scholar in architecture, attending the University of Liverpool under the tutelage of Sir Edmund Riley.

The breadth of his professional involvement is reflected in the honours bestowed upon him. He was a Companion of the Order of Canada; he received the Canada Council Medal for outstanding cultural achievement, the City of Toronto Award of Merit for distinguished public service, the American Association of State and Local History Award, the Centennial Medal, 1967, and the University of Alberta Gold Medal for distinguished service to arts and architecture in Canada.

He was the Lord Leverhulme Prizeman in civic design at the University of Liverpool. Earlier this year, at the age of 82 he received an honorary degree from the University of Guelph.

As well, Professor Arthur was a prolific writer and historian. His book, Toronto, No Mean City, published in 1964, has been widely circulated as have also his books, Old Buildings in Ontario, St. Andrew's Niagara-on-the-Lake, and 18th and 19th Century Buildings in Ontario.

Several years ago Professor Arthur astounded us all by having on the go three books at one time. All three were subsequently published in the same year. The first is entitled From Front Street to Queen's Park: the Story of Ontario's Parliament Buildings, which is familiar to most members of this Legislature. His work on The Barn, A Vanishing Landmark in North America, was also of great merit.

Other works include Moose Factory, Old Forts in Upper Canada, Guide to Historic Buildings in Ontario, and Buildings by the Sea. He lived to see the production of his last book on iron.

This is but a brief resumé of the remarkable lifetime of Professor Eric Arthur, a lifetime which spans more than 80 years but into which has been crammed the energy, activity and productivity of a lifestyle which was never diminished by a lack of creative interest, and one which was always marked by the great contribution he made to his community.

On behalf of the members of this Legislature, I extend deepest sympathy to Eric Arthur's family, his wife Doris and his children Paul and Jean, and to his many friends. He will be sorely missed.

[Later]

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

It seems to me that, while a statement on the death of a very well known citizen of Ontario who served us so well is very much in order, is there not a procedure you might at some time recommend to all of us as members of the House other than doing it on a point of order, such as asking for unanimous consent?

The Deputy Speaker: We will follow up that suggestion. Thank you.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring the House up to date on the most comprehensive endeavour in public consultation in the history of my ministry.

Last summer I appealed to the people of Ontario for their ideas on how we can best manage our natural resources for the benefit of all citizens of the province. At a series of 130 open-house meetings across Ontario, more than 10,000 Ontarians came forth with their ideas and suggestions. It was an unprecedented response and one of the most extensive public consultation programs anywhere.

Today, I am pleased to announce that almost all of the public comment from those open-house meetings is now available to the public. It can be viewed at the office of the Clerk of the Legislature or at the reading room of the Natural Resources' library on the fourth floor of the Whitney Block. The rest of the information will be provided within a week.

Because the resource management decisions we are about to make will have far-reaching effects, I am going to hold a further round of regional forums so that Ontarians can present their ideas to me directly. These open public forums will be held over the next few weeks in Timmins, London, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie and Kingston.

Individual copies of each of the public responses will be mailed to the critics' homes.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker: In the Speaker's gallery today is a parliamentary delegation composed of members of the Commission for Public Works of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

The members of the delegation have been meeting with Ministry of the Environment officials here in Ontario. The president of the commission is the Honorable Giuseppe Botta and the vice-president is the Honorable Domenico Susi. The president of the environmental committee of the commission is the Honorable Guiseppe Castoldi.

Would members of the assembly please welcome the Italian delegation?

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Will the Premier bring this House up to date on his discussions with the Ontario Medical Association? Will he tell us whether he has had any recent talks about their contributing to the restraint program or renegotiating the Ontario health insurance plan fees in any way in order to voluntarily give back something to the restraint program? What has he asked them? What is the current status of those negotiations? When did he last meet with them and when do they plan to meet again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when I have something of some substance to convey to the members of the House, I will seize the earliest opportunity to do so. I have nothing to add at this moment to what I have already said.

Mr. Peterson: If that was the general rule, he would never speak in this House, Mr. Speaker. But let me continue on to ask the Premier --

Mr. Bradley: Bette agrees. She is nodding.

Mr. Peterson: The minister agrees.

Let me ask the Premier about the comments of Dr. Murray McAdam, the head of the Ontario Medical Association, who said a few nights ago, "A small percentage of doctors told me they would go along with the restraint program." I want to ask the Premier what he will do if they say no?

Would it not have been more intelligent to have included the doctors in the restraint program from the beginning? Now it appears that we are headed for a confrontation whether the Premier likes it or not. Is he just going to back off from the whole question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is quite obvious that the Leader of the Opposition would have entered into a confrontation at the outset. That is not the way of this government.

Mr. Peterson: But it is obvious that we would have included them in the program. There is no doubt about that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I remain curious. The Premier is prepared to rip up the contracts of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union clerical workers and the contracts of the OPSEU service workers, and he is prepared to rip up approximately 100 contracts with members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. What is it, therefore, that holds him back from ripping up the contract with the doctors? It obviously is not considerations of legal nicety or morality that inhibit him. What is it that inhibits him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question for one of the member's colleagues a few days ago. If memory serves me correctly, I endeavoured to explain the difference in terms of the medical profession. I guess the members of the New Democratic Party consider them "civil servants" or municipal servants or employees of the municipalities which the legislation covers. On this side of the House we have defined the members of the medical profession as self-employed professionals.

Mr. Cooke: It is called a Tory double standard. That's exactly what it is called.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before the member gets so smart he might just look at what the candidate in York South representing his party is saying when he says he would leave the contract totally alone. What is more ludicrous than having the member ask that sort of question?

Mr. Cooke: There is no double standard here at all. It is you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Martel: Don't play niceties.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: My supplementary to the Premier is this: The Premier is no doubt aware that some 4,000 doctors in British Columbia agreed to return some $30 million to the government of British Columbia as their contribution to the restraint program; roughly, as I understand it, some $8,000 apiece. He is aware, of course, that if a comparable program could be agreed in Ontario, we could liberate something like $80 million or $100 million that could be saved, kept in the public treasury and spent on jobs in the province.

Would the Premier not agree with me that given the severity of the economic problems we have in the province at this time, the desperate need for jobs and the shortage of money to create those jobs, that $80 million to $100 million could be far better spent here in Ontario creating jobs? Will he allow his back-bench members of the committee to support an amendment we will put in committee this afternoon to include the doctors' fees in the restraint program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear the committee is reaching the stage of consideration of the actual wording of the bill itself.

I think there were several questions implicit in what the leader of the community party was suggesting. First, am I aware of what happened in British Columbia? The answer to that is yes.

Mr. Roy: What a pussycat he is, afraid to deal with the doctors.

Mr. Peterson: I am glad the Premier is at least aware of something, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Better than being aware of nothing.

NATIVE RIGHTS

Mr. Peterson: I have another question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask him about the mediation process between the government and the Whitedog Indian Band regarding the mercury pollution in the English-Wabigoon River system.

I am sure he is aware that, at the Premiers' conference this summer, in discussing the Constitution and native rights, he said, "Ontario is devoted to finding real and lasting solutions to the problems of the native people." He will recall, also, that he accepted the recommendations of the Hartt Commission in May 1978 and the first priority was the establishment of a mediation process to address the plight of the Indian community. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Hartt said at that time, and this is particularly relevant, "What justification for immediate government action is required other than common decency and the restoration of human dignity?"

The Premier must also be aware that the mediation process terminated unsuccessfully in May 1981, and that not one major issue has been resolved between Ontario and the Indian band, even though the federal government has now resolved its issues with the band. From December 1981 to the present there have been only two meetings wit h the Whitedog band to deal with the unresolved issues, and the band has been told to communicate with the provincial negotiator who has yet to be appointed. When is the Premier going to use his good offices to make sure that there are real and lasting solutions to the problems of the native people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is correct. Some issues have been resolved. There is no question there are still some outstanding issues that the government is very anxious to see resolved. We are in the process. I cannot put any time frame on it, but I will keep the House informed as we make progress. I say that in a very optimistic frame of mind.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Premier not feel some obligation at least to appoint a negotiator whom everyone knows about? Why does he not instruct that negotiator to proceed with dispatch to resolve some of the outstanding issues? He, of course, is aware of a number of those outstanding issues.

I point out to him, for example, the issue of the children's group home. He knows that some 40 to 50 children from the Whitedog band are scattered throughout Ontario in foster homes. Is he aware that the band wants to bring those children back to the reserve to live there? They need a modest financial contribution from Ontario. But, as of now, the Premier has made no offer, there has been no meaningful discussion and the issue of the plight of those children goes on unsolved. Why would he not use his authority, as first minister of this province, to make sure his mediators move with great dispatch?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is always a tendency -- and I am not being critical -- to oversimplify these issues. It would not be totally accurate to say no progress has been made. Or to say no effort has been, or is being made; that would not be accurate either.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Premier has to do with the fact that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) is the cabinet minister responsible for negotiations with our native peoples. Does the Premier feel it is appropriate for that minister to continue to fulfil that role, and to hold that position, in view of his comments at the resources development committee last Thursday evening? He referred to the native people as being children of the federal government and he questioned one of the native people as to his nationality.

2:20 p.m.

Does the Premier really believe that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development is the appropriate cabinet minister to fulfil that very sensitive role?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very proper to point out to the honourable member that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has demonstrated a sensitivity with respect to this and many other issues. I think if the member --

lnterjections.

An hon member: Particularly tile drainage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I can only assume that the Liberal Party, or the community party of Ontario, is now opposed to tile drainage. Is that the essence of the member's important interjection? Is that really what the member is concerned about? I thought we were discussing the native people.

I was not present, and I am no one to say in what context the minister made those references. If he is saying that in many areas the jurisdiction is that of the government of Canada, he is technically quite correct.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier says that I oversimplify these matters, and he says, in fact, that a lot of progress has been made. Am I quoting him properly?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said some.

Mr. Peterson: Some progress has been made. Perhaps the Premier would be good enough to share with the members of this House who the negotiator is, who the mediator is and how much progress has been made. How far along the road is the government to making a resolution of the wild rice question, or the land use question in the immediate vicinity of the reserve, or on the financial contributions that have been asked with respect to the Ontario Hydro settlement, or on the issue of the children's home on the reserve or the commercial fishing issue?

Perhaps he would be good enough to tell me how much progress has been made, and specifically what that progress is, on those issues.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will give just one example. I think we are making progress on the wild rice. That is the one matter I have taken a particular interest in. Actually -- and I am going totally by memory here -- I had arranged to meet with Chief Kelly and others roughly two weeks ago, and because of a meeting, I believe, in Winnipeg -- because that is where I talked to Chief Kelly on the phone: when he was in Winnipeg -- they were unable to come in, because I think their meeting dealt with the Constitutional matter, etc. At that time we agreed that we would schedule another date to meet.

Once again I am optimistic that we can find a solution. If the Leader of the Opposition wants the particulars of when that meeting was to be with Chief Kelly, I can get them for him. If he were to call Chief Kelly, I think he would find that it was because of a conflict in dates and because of a very important meeting for them in Winnipeg -- I think I am right in saying it was in Winnipeg -- we have had to alter it.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Lalonde's budgetary statement is going to mean an increasing restriction on consumer spending, and the Treasurer will recall that in the opening remarks he made to Bill 179 he said, "The fact is, we are not going to get this economy moving until people take their money and start spending and investing it."

Can the Treasurer tell me specifically what steps he is going to take in the next two weeks in order to counter the restrictions in consumer spending that were imposed by Mr. Lalonde in his statement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: The obvious supplementary is: Why not? While the Treasurer is pondering that, he will recall that the impact of his spring budget was to take about $350 out of the average Ontario budget; that Mr. MacEachen's June budget, by limiting indexing, will cost the average family $40; that Mr. Lalonde's recent increase in unemployment insurance contributions will cost the average family $130, and that his own wage controls through Bill 179 will take about $1,000 from those families affected by that bill.

When is his government, along with the federal Liberal government going to stop taking money out of the pockets of Ontario families and when is this government going to start putting some back in?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member has displayed the inconsistency his party is famous for. On the one hand, the fact that I did not spend tax dollars in Ontario to increase the salaries of civil servants beyond five per cent is seen as taking money out of the pockets of Ontario citizens. On the other hand, Mr. MacEachen's and Mr. Lalonde's direct taxation moves are seen as taking money out of the pockets of Ontario citizens. They are entirely the opposite. The fact that we did not spend those moneys in salaries means I do not have to take money out of taxpayers' pockets.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this morning the executive director of the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association directly blamed the Treasurer's seven per cent sales tax on fast food products for bringing about a decrease in the amount spent in these establishments in Ontario, thus leading to layoffs in that industry.

Given the fact that consumer spending is lagging, is the Treasurer considering some selective cuts in certain areas of the seven per cent sales tax in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker. And, for the sake of the record, let me try to correct what appears to have been a mistake in the ORFA figures. I do not know how they got theirs, but the only thing we can see is that they have the inverse of the figures: instead of a minus, they should have a plus.

We use as our source of information the figures in Statistics Canada publication 63-011. The ORFA, allegedly using that source, said sales were down by six per cent in Ontario, while they were up by one per cent in the rest of Canada. The actual figures show that sales were up by 8.7 per cent in Ontario and by 3.8 per cent in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada, in its second quarter report on business attitudes, asked corporate executives to choose those factors most affecting their production and investment plans; given the choice between labour disputes or labour costs and weak market demand, the overwhelming majority claimed that weak market demand affected their decisions most.

In view of those statistics and that fact, how can the Treasurer possibly promote the idea of wage controls in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, again the honourable member is showing some degree of inconsistency. Of course weak market demand is the major problem; no matter what else, if one does not have business, all other problems pale into insignificance.

The fact remains that there is great inequitable distribution of people's incomes in this province. The member likes to recite the percentage growth of the private sector versus that of the public sector. What he forgets is that the people in the public sector get that percentage 52 weeks a year. Many of the people on the production lines of this province get an award for 36, 38 or 40 weeks a year; they would settle for a lot less for 52 weeks.

Mr. Foulds: Two injustices do not make it right.

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can he confirm the existence of an interministerial committee that is reviewing the regulations on refillable bottles and bottle recycling? Can the minister indicate why this interministerial committee has been formed, who is on it and what ministries are involved? Is it looking at the possibility of allowing more nonrefillable bottles into the stores? Can the minister confirm that the committee has accepted about 12 to 15 briefs from industrial groups so far?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I presume the honourable member is referring to beverage containers. If that is the case, yes, there is an interministerial group that was established by me some months ago to review a number of submissions that had been received by the ministry.

This was done on my initiative, flowing out of my concern, starting just prior to last Christmas, about the particular direction that advertising of beverage cans was taking in this province and my conviction that this was not in keeping with the understanding that had been arrived at with the industry and with my predecessor in this ministry some years ago.

2:30 p.m.

Initially I corresponded with various manufacturers, expressing my concern and my intention to take some decisive action if this course continued. I suppose we might say that out of that grew a consultation that resulted in the submission of about 19 or 20 interesting proposals, some of them particularly so, which are currently being reviewed by my staff and with other interested ministries through the interministerial committee. For example, there is representation from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations because of the wide range of proposals which include matters relating to pricing and all the rest of it. For that reason, the consumer element was important.

There has been no recommendation from that group at this point. There has been no decision, although I have recently directed that all those who are contemplating submissions should be advised that we have to cut it off because a decision has to be taken.

Mr. Foulds: How can the minister make an informed decision and expect to have a balanced representation of submissions to his committee when he has kept the existence of that committee secret, has not announced it to this Legislature or to the public and has not informed environmental groups? Why has he done it in this secret way? How does he expect to come to any valid conclusions? Does he expect to get the regulations through without public consultation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My initial reaction is "baloney." As far as that kind of diatribe is concerned, surely there is a stage at which --

Mr. Foulds: You are going to cut off the submissions without notifying the public.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. That is not so at all.

Mr. Foulds: That is what you said.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not what I said. The member should calm down and listen for a moment. These knee-jerk reactions he engages in really do betray the fact that he sometimes does show some signs of intelligence. I suggest that the member use his reason once in a while in exchanges like this and they might be more productive.

What I am engaged in at the moment is the development of a position on which I could consult further. If the member is suggesting that as a minister of the crown I am not entitled to engage in an internal process to develop a position that addresses a problem prior to consulting publicly, then he has a lot to learn.

Mr. Foulds: It's secret.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, secret be damned! How could it be secret? I have talked to the press about it out here in the hall on numerous occasions. I have never been asked about it in the House before. I have been circulating letters across this province to anyone who has demonstrated an interest. Do not accuse me of being secretive.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know the one group outside of industry that is making a presentation had to force its way into being allowed to do so and was not informed by his ministry or anyone else.

Will the minister assure this House there will be no weakening of the regulations on refillable beverage containers as a result of this process? Will he further assure us that whatever recommendations come out of this interministerial committee will be tabled in this House so we can have a full public discussion of whatever recommendations there are?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the members opposite it is because of their inadequacy that they have not been aware of what the press has been aware of for months. Because the honourable member has not been aware of it, he should not accuse me of being secretive.

As to this utter nonsense about somebody forcing his way in, I do not know who the member is listening to. Presumably he is listening to some of his plants in the environmental groups in this province; I am not going to name names, but he knows who I am referring to.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever had to force his way into my office. I am very open and receptive to input from the public and, in fact, in most cases I have met personally with any group that has expressed an interest. I do not know what this reference to somebody trying to force their way in is about.

In response to the essence of the member's question regarding the ultimate recommendations, I assure him that in the fashion in which my ministry has established its good reputation, it will be a responsible proposal that I bring forward.

BOROUGH OF YORK REVIEW

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who will recall the confusion surrounding some 700 million gallons of water in the borough of York last spring.

No doubt he also will be aware of the unprecedented labour difficulties that have existed in that borough for the past two years and of the comprehensive audit performed by Thorne Riddell which indicated that the zero-base budgeting process implemented in York was not being utilized properly.

In view of all these facts, how is it possible for the minister's staff to fully investigate and prepare a report in less than four weeks in response to a request of the York-Eglinton Business Association for an inquiry into the borough's affairs? How can the businessmen and the residents of York be confident that the numerous matters raised in their request for an inquiry have been dealt with fully and accurately in such a short time?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the request made by the business association to review the workings of the borough of York --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At least I am here five days of the week, which is somewhat better than the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) can attain in this House. His efforts speak well for themselves.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should talk about posing. I have never seen anybody rush to get into a picture as you did last week. You nearly tripped going down the stairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member thought they were going to put him on microfilm last week.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister is responding to the member for Yorkview.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As the minister reporting for municipal affairs, I was requested by the York-Eglinton Business Association to review some actions that were taken by the municipal council over the past two years in that borough.

The honourable member asks why in a relatively short period of time we were able to go in and do an assessment of the points raised in the petition and some others. It was because we had the full co-operation of the administration of that borough, which supplied to us the documentation and the background material necessary to review the points raised in that petition.

It is very clear in my response to the chairman of the association, to the mayor of the borough and to the members of council of that borough -- we went through, I believe, in a point by point manner -- that ultimately what we were really talking about was political differences. That is what it really comes down to.

The member can shake his head, but when he sits down and looks at the people who were raising the petition, at their background and so on, what they really wanted to achieve was, I gather, to embarrass the mayor and one or two members of council to some degree. Frankly, we went through the situation and we drew our conclusion.

The staff have been very effective in this aspect of reviewing municipalities. We have had a number of inquiries. They have made their analysis of other municipalities and have submitted them. They have never been told that they should do it in a slipshod or half-hearted fashion. Indeed, they took their time and analysed the questions.

I say clearly to this House and to the member, the matters that were in question were political decisions by a council. They have been dragged through the press on several occasions; they have been resolved in second and third attempts at city council. I want to emphasize again that in the opinion of the ministry, and the advice given to this minister, they were exactly that: political decisions being taken by a freely elected council. If the people do not wish that kind of decision-making, on November 8 they will decide and it will come out.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Spensieri: It is interesting that the minister should talk about political differences. When one looks at the minister's covering letters attached to the staff report dated October 25, the same date as appears in the report itself, would it be reasonable to infer that the minister did not review the report himself and that the letters were prepared by the report's authors?

The minister was aware of the fact that on October 7 his staff met with the borough's Tory mayor and her executive assistant; the controller, who is a former Progressive Conservative candidate in Oakwood; the PC candidate in this week's York South by-election -- political differences, indeed -- the Treasurer; and the borough clerk.

At that meeting, which took place only one week after the petition for an inquiry had been submitted, ministry staff were advised by the Treasurer and the PC politicians in attendance that it would be "most unlikely" that the minister would recommend that an inquiry be held.

In fact, the staff never met with the other council members or with the commissioners of public works, whose department was the subject of the comprehensive audit.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Spensieri: I am coming to my question. This is a big issue, Mr. Speaker. It requires a big preamble.

Despite this, their final report was released only two weeks before the municipal election. Can the minister state with a serene face that no claim can be made that this is not unusual, unsettling and, indeed, improper for the electors of York South?

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is okay. I will attempt to answer it with some degree of seriousness, because it was not asked, I do not think, in the same tone of voice.

An hon. member: It was read.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Read. I am sorry, yes.

When the ministry is asked to do a review of a municipal operation or some particular question is raised by the municipality, obviously senior staff are assigned to go in, do the investigation and report back to the minister.

I have had the opportunity to go through the entire report with our staff, and I make no secret in this House, nor have I before, nor has the staff of the ministry, that when we go into a municipality that is under question, we meet with people who have raised the question, and we meet with the people on both the administrative and the elected levels. It is not very logical that we should wander in and do a report by talking just to the city clerk, let us say, and not talking to either of the other parties who might be very deeply involved in the issues at hand.

We went through the entire situation, and it could very well be, and I would trust, that the investigators would meet with the mayor and with how many controllers I do not know. There are some situations, and I am not saying particularly in this case, where members of the council do not accept the invitation to meet with the investigating team as to the relevance of the facts that are coming out relating to the inquiry being requested. I cannot force them, nor do I intend to.

I suggest that members of council, whether they be Mayor Gayle Christie, Fergy Brown or some of the others, very notable people in that community, are obviously Tories; and the wisdom of York is so prominent because they have elected Tories to run that jurisdiction for the past number of years.

I realize the member has a purpose in the question, because I understand we do have a candidate running for mayor in that area who is of a red nature supporting that particular party. I realize that fully. I was up there campaigning with Barbara Jafelice this morning. She is going to give that fellow a real run for his money, and even Bob Rae might have some difficulty before this is over.

The Deputy Speaker: The answer is?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The answer very simply is that we did an in-depth report of the questions raised by the petitioners. We have responded to them. We were asked both by the petition group and by the people of the borough to release the report as quickly as possible so as to get in both cases, the businessmen and the elected people, the facts and figures out on the table and to get it out of the way as an election issue, which is what some people have tried to make it.

When the report was brought to us on September 25, it was analysed and had been analysed some days prior to that and it was released to the president of the association and to the mayor and members of council on that date so as to clear up any uncertainty and make it very clear. The fact remains that they are questioning the political decisions made by the elected members. If they do not agree with them, then I suggest they will have another alternative, and that comes next Monday, November 8.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, does the minister at least admit that the problem which the Liberal member raised for the first time in this Legislature has been raised in the past five to six years by the former member for York South and myself?

Mr. Roy: Oh yes.

Mr. Kerrio: Get your book out and we'll put a star in it.

Mr. Grande: Well, the Liberals have found the issue, haven't they? They have found the issue finally.

The major concern and the distrust that the petition by the York-Eglinton Business Association has produced is a result of the frustration felt for many years because of the fact that the residents and businessmen in the borough of York are paying the highest rate of taxation anywhere in Metropolitan Toronto. As far back as a year and a half ago a petition addressed to the Premier was tabled in this Legislature and nothing has been done about that. Nothing has been done about the Goldenberg commission report of the 1960s --

The Deputy Speaker: The question is? It is coming too, is it?

Mr. Grande: It is coming as well, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has been done about the Robarts commission report. Will the minister not admit that it is a political decision and that the political decision has been his and his government's that the borough of York resident must pay the highest rate of taxes in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have to suggest to the honourable member that it is a pleasant thing to hear a member of his party saying that. Whether it is party philosophy or not, I am not quite sure, but the member for Oakwood is now saying there should be a lesser rate of taxation on the business community. The other day, his own leader continued to suggest that the business community should be paying a higher degree of taxation in all jurisdictions. Indeed, he seems to be doubling back on himself to suit his own purposes today.

Very clearly, that borough has been extremely well run over the past number of years because it has had a good Tory mayor. I do not deny that for a moment. Indeed, she has been backed up by some very good Tory controllers and aldermen in that borough. I understand there will be one less Liberal alderman in that jurisdiction as a result of a certain by-election on November 4.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: An NDP turned Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: An NDP turned Liberal; that is right. They are the worst kind. Rather like converted smokers or drinkers and a few other things, they preach the gospel better from the other side.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Have you answered the question?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my answer very clearly is that we have examined the various remarks that have been made in relation to that borough and about other boroughs in other jurisdictions in the province municipally. I have to say that the borough of York has been shown to be properly run in all cases. They made the political decisions; they have been re-elected on numerous occasions and those same issues continue to be raised time and again, even after the elections are over.

I say very clearly that the borough of York has had a full examination by this ministry. Whatever decision I happen to make, and it does not make any difference whether I make it as the minister from an unbiased position or not, the fact is that the members on that side will always claim it to be a political decision. I am a politician; so most decisions I make will have a political overtone to them, and rightly so.

2:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Martel: A new question.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, if it is a new question, it has to come from the official opposition.

Mr. Foulds: No, no. That was the member for Yorkview's question, believe it or not.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. You are right. The member for Sudbury East.

DRESSER CANADA

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Dresser Canada Inc. and the failure of the internal responsibility system, the failure by the ministry to enforce, and worker intimidation.

I wonder whether the minister is aware of statements in two reports by his inspectors, one in 1980 and one in 1981. The first report stated:

"The internal responsibility system is not alive and well in this shop. It must be noted that, although some items are going to require longer, most are minor in nature and could be cleaned up in very short order if an honest effort was put forward."

The second report by the minister's own inspector stated: "The internal responsibility system is not entrenched in this plant as yet. It is not yet alert and responsive to the health and safety needs. There was a total of 26 lost-time accidents for the months of January and February of 1981. At that rate the company will have 150 in a 12-month period. This is far in excess of anything reasonable for a plant of this size."

Is the minister further aware that for November and December of 1981 and January 1982, there were 38 lost-time accidents and only eight were reported to the health and safety committee, which means there were 30 contraventions of the act, and that from April to July of 1981, of 45 lost-time accidents, only 12 were reported to the health and safety committee, which means there were 33 contraventions of the act? The same report stated that in March there were 26 contraventions on this report and they required immediate attention.

With such a large number of contraventions, can the minister tell us why they failed to lay any charges against Dresser Canada Inc.?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as you are probably aware, the honourable member has been heading up a task force that has been travelling around the province. I want to commend him for that. I mean that sincerely, and I do not say that in a provocative way at all, because my philosophy is that any information we can receive about problems in the work place gives us a further opportunity to move in to try to help wherever we can.

There are 167,000 establishments or work places in Ontario. There are 3.4 million workers in those 167,000 work places, and we have a total field staff of 232; so it is impossible for our people to be constantly in each work place checking the circumstances. Something like the task force has been of great assistance to us.

Having said that, though, I must also indicate that I am disappointed that in some places the task force visited, and where we had a representative of our ministry there, the ministry personnel was asked to leave, and yet the press was allowed --

Mr. Martel: No. We allowed them in. The union said, "No, we don't want them there."

An hon. member: Now we know who runs the party. It is just what we have always said: you are run by the unions.

The Deputy Speaker: Please allow the minister to conclude.

An hon. member: From the mouths of babes the truth doth come.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I was saying, on many occasions our representative was asked to leave, while the media people were allowed to remain.

So that makes it a little more difficult for us to get as much information as we would like to get from the task force. Let me assure the member that in each case where we have been privy to the information they have received, our field force have been following up just as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Martel: The minister might be interested to know that it was because they do not trust his inspectors that they did not want them there. Here are more than 100 contraventions, and no charges were laid.

Let me continue, though, because reprisals enter this picture, is the minister aware that a Mr. Dewsberry refused to work under unsafe conditions, was sent home and had his pay deducted, and it took ministry intervention to get his money back? Is he also aware that a second man refused to perform work for a brief time because he was asked to work from a suspended wire crate without a safety harness but went back to performing the work for fear of reprisal?

Is the minister further aware that his own staff tested for welding fumes and found that of the 13 samples taken, five were in excess of the time-weighted average? Is he aware that on March 12, 38 workers refused to work under the conditions I indicated, and the company called it an illegal work stoppage, refused to pay the men and sent them the following letter --

The Deputy Speaker: You are not going to read the whole letter?

Mr. Martel: No. Just one paragraph, one sentence.

The Deputy Speaker: Does it have the question in the paragraph?

Mr. Martel: When I started out I said, "Is the minister aware?"

The letter says. "'Refusing to work in this instance and failing to obtain a respirator shall be considered an illegal work stoppage and your employment may, therefore, be terminated."

In view of the fact that in all three instances reprisals were taken, can the minister tell me why his ministry did not lay a charge for those reprisals against those workers? As the minister himself said: "There are a lot of companies in this province. We have a limited staff." Unless industry knows that the minister is going to get tough with it, we will never have enough staff to cover the province.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member is bringing forward a particular circumstance where the internal responsibility system obviously has not worked. If he would give me an opportunity, I could bring forward many examples where the internal responsibility system has worked.

I could quote an article not too long ago from the Sault Ste. Marie newspaper where the vice-president of Local 2251 of the United Steelworkers of America, who is also the chairman of the occupational health and safety committee, said, "We had problems with the internal responsibility system at the beginning." But he said, "Since then, we have those problems worked out and the system is working well."

I maintain the system is working well in many places across the province, but of necessity there will be places where it does not work. Those are the ones we are working on. Those are the ones where, through an educational system and through our inspections, the act is being administered and there is a gradual improvement day after day, week after week,

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not know whether the minister has been tending to -- I will not say he is attempting to mislead the House. Is the minister prepared to indicate that it is through the collective agreement that they have gone beyond the Occupational Health and Safety Act, that it is not the act itself?

The Deputy Speaker: New question; the member for St. Catharines.

SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about a situation that is becoming an emergency very quickly. It has been a chronic situation in the Niagara Peninsula but has become an emergency rather quickly in the Niagara Peninsula and right across the province.

In view of the fact that in the Niagara Peninsula the Residential Tenancy Commission granted increases averaging 16.49 per cent over the past year, and in view of the fact that there are so many people on the waiting list of Ontario Housing -- both families and senior citizens -- and that there is a need for affordable housing for those in the very lowest income brackets, can the minister inform the House what immediate action he is taking to meet the needs of those specific people, who really cannot take advantage of the home buyer programs that the federal and provincial governments have placed before the population?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I take it the honourable member is really referring more to rental accommodation than he is to ownership. Indeed, the member will recall that a year ago we had the Ontario rental construction loan program, which was very successful in the province. I do not have the figure for the exact number of units that were built in the peninsula but, as the member will recall, 20 per cent of those units were to be given upon completion to the local authority --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Up to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Up to -- that is correct. Up to 20 per cent were to be made available through the housing authority in the local jurisdiction for use by people on the waiting list for public assistance in the rental of units. That number is to be supplemented by the programs of the municipal nonprofit, private nonprofit and co-op groups.

I have to suggest very sincerely to this House that one of the areas where we are going to find the greatest relief in the number of rent subsidy units will be under the private, public nonprofits and the co-ops.

3 p.m.

As the members will appreciate, our biggest problem is trying to get a better allocation of numbers of units from the federal government through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and the availability of mortgage money on a write-down basis. From that point on, the feds will say to each province, and Ontario will not be excluded from the category, "You will be assigned X number of units for that type of use."

I have said to the former federal Minister of Public Works, and I am hoping to meet with the new federal minister in a short time to emphasize to him and make it clear, that one of the areas in which we have had a great shortfall has been the number of units assigned to Ontario. I think every municipal nonprofit housing corporation will attest to this. We just have not had enough units to cope in any way, shape or form with the number of people on the list.

I can assure this House and the people of this province that I will continue to stress to Mr. LeBlanc, the new minister reporting for CMHC, that there will have to be a greater number of units allocated to this province if we are to have an impact on the numbers on the waiting list for publicly assisted housing.

Mr. Bradley: I will accept that the minister is involved in these negotiations and what he says is correct. I will go on the assumption that in terms of his negotiations with the federal government what he is saying is correct. I do not know whether it is, but I will assume that.

Last week, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) indicated to the House that transfer payments to municipalities will be in the nature of five per cent or less, and he is certainly privy in general terms to that kind of information. Welfare costs are going to increase tremendously. They will be looking very carefully at the people who are eligible and at how much money will be allocated.

Does the minister not recognize that on an immediate basis, regardless of what negotiations are going on with the feds, there will be a lot of people who are not going to have suitable accommodation this winter unless he is prepared to take action on his own, even if it is on a short-term basis, while he is waiting for the federal negotiations to be satisfactory to him?

If he does not take that kind of action, there will be hundreds of people in this province, many of them in the Niagara Peninsula, who simply are not going to have adequate accommodation and it will be a very difficult winter. Does the minister not recognize that? What immediate action is he going to take of his own volition to solve that problem?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am fully aware of some of the problems we have in relation to providing rental accommodation at a subsidized position, not only in the Niagara Peninsula but in most major metropolitan areas across the province. I am not about to suggest to the Treasurer that as a province we try to assume the entire responsibility.

The member will have to agree with me, or he should, that from a provincial taxpayer's point of view, it would be rather ridiculous because once in that position the federal government has no reason to respond positively. Its position would be, "If you can cope with the situation entirely on your own as a province, why should we be participating at all?"

I trust the member will analyse the reason for coming to that conclusion. When we talked about the blue-ribbon report Mr. MacEachen established and which Mr. Lalonde has now cast aside as not being workable, a position with which I do not disagree, the member will recall one of the principal reasons it no longer was necessary was because a number of provinces had already moved into some interest subsidy programs for mortgage funding. The federal government then did not see any reason to try to participate in that field of operation.

I would suggest to the member and to the people of this province that the moment I suggest to the Treasurer, and if we should ever take the position, that we go it alone as a province in the provision of rental accommodation, disregarding the federal government for the moment because of its slowness in responding to the problem, one can be sure it will never respond to it. I do not believe that is the direction I would want to take this province at this time.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that in the city of Welland alone the housing crisis committee is getting two or three calls a day from families that either cannot afford housing or cannot afford a place to go? Is he also aware that Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. owns scores of houses in the Niagara Peninsula, even dozens in Welland, which are vacant at the present time? What approach has been made to the CMHC so that these homes can be used to meet the current housing crisis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall, and I am sure other members of this House will recall, that CHMC made a statement some months ago to the effect that it was going to do one of two things with those homes it had repossessed, or homes that people had turned in their keys and walked away from. If it had an opportunity to put them back into the market and sell them, it would do so; if it did not, it would put them into a rental position.

I think the member will find that across this province there are a number of units owned by CMHC as a result of defaults in mortgages that are in the rental market. It is the same in the Ontario Mortgage Corp. We have a number of condominiums that we have taken back or never sold for which we held the principal mortgages on the building; we have taken those units and turned them into rental accommodations. We have not neglected the opportunity of limiting the lease to one year so that eventually, we hope, we can put them into the position of sale units so that somebody could acquire these units under the renter-buy program

I am fully aware of some of the vacancies that we have, and we continue to make suggestions to CMHC. But, and I say this with great respect to the new minister responsible for CMHC and his immediate predecessor, they have much concern and consideration about where people will be housed and of the fact that it is not sensible to keep an investment by the taxpayers of Ontario or Canada sitting idly by while others are still looking for accommodation.

Mr. Cosgrove and, I have no doubt, Mr. LeBlanc -- I will discuss it with him when I have my meeting with him next week -- made the very point that the member raised, that they were continuing to pursue the opportunity of renting out those units they have acquired through one means or another.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can he explain why his ministry countermanded and reneged on its commitment to provide French-language psychiatric care for the Algoma district? A statement made by the minister on October 14 was countermanded by a ministry spokesman only four or five days later.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion about that original statement. The original statement as issued was not entirely correct. The situation has been clarified by a subsequent memo that came out from the ministry. That is not to say that is the final resolution of the availability of French-language psychiatric services to northern Ontario. It is simply a correction as of that date with regard to the status of that new initiative by the ministry, which I know the honourable member will support because it brings much-needed French-language psychiatric services to, I believe, five communities in northern Ontario.

We are trying to clarify that a little bit further for the member as we see just how many people are going to be available to us under this program.

Mr. Wildman: While I appreciate the minister's comment, and certainly I support the provision of French-language psychiatric care to northeastern Ontario, the point is that the original statement said it would go to five districts, one of which was the Algoma district. The subsequent statement said that this was incorrect and that French-speaking people living in the Algoma district could travel to Sudbury.

Is the minister aware of the distances that entails; that people in Dubreuilville, a francophone community about 200 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie, would have to travel almost 400 miles to get service? Surely, if he is going to review the situation, he will provide at least a system of travelling psychiatrists to come in on a regular basis to the Algoma district as well as the other four districts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The number of days we were able to acquire from the psychiatrists involved was rather limited at the start of this new program. Consequently we tried to locate that given number of psychiatrists and the number of hours they had available, at four or five central points, so they would be available to a wide variety of people.

Obviously there are some people in the Algoma district who will have to travel rather extraordinary distances to get the service. As we are able to acquire more and more hours from more and more people, it is our intention to expand it. There will be no delay in terms of a trial period for a year or so; as soon as we are able to acquire more, we will be expanding it.

AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Ambulance attendants are being subjected to an increasing number of situations in which their own personal safety is in jeopardy because of unruly and or unsympathetic bystanders at the scenes of some accidents or emergency calls.

Does the ministry have any emergency procedures to protect ambulance attendants at such calls?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, they are all trained to handle a wide variety of situations, but I do not think we should pretend that all the people involved are going to be able to handle every kind of situation that arises. When one looks at the experience throughout the province, there are extraordinarily few incidents in which something arises that they are unable to handle. I suppose with all the training possible, there will still be some. Indeed, we see tragically from time to time that there are some incidents that well-trained police officers run into and cannot handle. In looking at the record, I have to say there are so few incidents, if any, arising in the course of a year that the situation is relatively under control.

PETITIONS

START CENTRE

Mr. McNeil: I would like to file a petition containing over 3,000 names opposing the closing of the Start Centre in St. Thomas.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a petition containing 420 signatures from residents of the town of East Gwillimbury. It says:

"We the undersigned strenuously object to the fact that 128 nonresidents of our town have filed application for inclusion in the preliminary list of electors, which will entitle them to vote in the coming municipal election. They claim to be tenants by virtue of membership in a club situated in the town.

"If this practice is allowed to continue, then all small towns could lose control of their own destiny to outsiders who have little vested interest and no concern whatsoever, save their own interests. We request the provincial government to immediately enact legislation to change the Election Act and put an end to this deplorable situation."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

In accordance with the petition tabled in the House on March 30, 1982, your committee has considered the annual report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Your committee will shortly be presenting to the House a report on wife battering, but believes that other aspects of family violence require study by the committee.

Once the current session is prorogued, the Speaker's ruling of April 22, 1982, will preclude further study of family violence, by petition under standing order 33(b), of the annual report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Accordingly, your committee recommends that the standing committee on social development be authorized to conduct further inquiries into family violence during the interval between the second and third sessions of this parliament.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, the report is self-explanatory. I would like to point out that the hearings held during the summer were very successful. It was an occasion for committee members to focus on an area of serious concern, namely, domestic violence, both interfamily and intrafamily violence. The committee feels this universal problem needs further study, investigation, reporting and recommendations. This is why we recommend that this committee be allowed to continue to look at other areas of family violence between the second and third sessions of this parliament.

On motion by Mr. Shymko, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. McNeil and Mr. Kells exchange positions in the order for the consideration of private members' ballot items.

Motion agreed to,

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR PRICING ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 184, An Act to provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require a fair price for every product and service sold to consumers in Ontario, where a retail seller charges an unfair price, the bill sets out procedures and remedies for ensuring compliance with the fair pricing requirements. The bill provides for an appeal of fair pricing orders to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Kerr moved, seconded by Mr. Havrot, first reading of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 91, An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act;

Bill 93, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act;

Bill 163, An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act;

Bill 164, An Act to amend the Horticultural Societies Act;

Bill 171, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act;

Bill 172, An Act to amend the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act.

3:20 p.m.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, although I adjourned the debate the other day, I am finished with my remarks, if someone else wants to speak to this particular bill.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions when we have looked at amendments to acts in a similar form to this one: that of an omnibus bill. Once again I want to object to using this form to amend something like the Municipal Act. The bill really takes several matters which have no connection, except that they are covered under the Municipal Act, and puts them before the House in one package.

There is provision in certain portions of the debate for members to register that they are in favour of one part opposed to another, but the format still means that in this particular stage of debate we have to take it or leave it as a package; and if that is the process, and it is, then I am going to recommend that we continue to oppose this particular kind of presentation.

There are some matters in here to which I think I have very little objection. Certainly, some of the work that is in this particular bill purports to be simple housekeeping and, in part, it is. There are a couple of matters, though, on which I want to comment: the obvious one being that I am rather reluctant to see the end of the day when the posses can be called out. I do not know that anybody has ever used that in recent times, but it has been threatened from time to time.

There are a couple of other things that bother me. One is the reference in section 5 to deleting the prohibition against council members' receiving money from the municipal treasurer for work done, in light of the provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1982. This, as yet, has not been dealt with. It is the form there rather than the contents that I object to: that is to say, we are amending one act, the Municipal Act, because there is another bill which has been tabled in the Legislature but which has not yet been fully dealt with and which will cover the provision deleted from the Municipal Act.

It brings me to the interesting problem: in a procedural sense, is it really a sane way to proceed? One act is amended on the premise that another act will be subsequently passed. We have seen racks full of legislative proposals that never really happened. For example, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is one which I have followed with some considerable interest. Somewhat regretfully, we have not yet been able to finalize our debate on that. There is an instance where in straight procedural terms I have some objection to using that particular kind of proposal.

What bothered me a bit more than the other proposals is the one included in the omnibus bill to provide for the use of the English and French languages by a municipality. I have difficulty with the fact, if I can put it very simply, that Ontario is putting a responsibility on to the municipalities which it does not appear to be prepared to accept for itself.

We have had several debates in this House about the proposals for the government of Ontario to accept two official languages for the province in all senses. We have established that the province is not prepared to do that; in fact, it vetoed a private member's bill which would have done that, even though the House clearly made its feelings known that in general it does support that concept. However, the government continues to refuse.

Obviously, I do not have any objection to an amendment to the Municipal Act which provides for services in both languages. We are all aware that a number of municipalities, because common sense dictates it, will do just exactly that. My objection, very simply, is that it seems to me to be an unwise process for the province to say to another level of government, "We think you ought to do that."

It also does so in a rather wishy-washy manner in this particular proposal. If it says to municipalities, "You ought to provide services," or, "You ought to be able to provide services in both official languages of this country," why is it not prepared to do so itself, with all of the ramifications?

I do not have major objections to very much that is in this bill, but I do have objections to certain portions of it and I have attempted to outline those portions. If we can devise a technique which allows me to make those distinctions before I am required to vote on the bill, or at least allows me to separate the distinctions, then I think it will have resolved the problem. I do not have great difficulty with the bill, but I will oppose it in its current form. I did want to have the opportunity to make those brief remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Ottawa East.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I sense the unrestrained enthusiasm of the assembly as I rise to participate in such an important debate.

My colleague, the critic, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), has already outlined the party's position. Of course we in this party are very supportive of that position, because in the past we have accepted his leadership in the field of municipal law, amendments to municipal acts, and so on, and we have been very wise to do so. We found that to be a very wise course.

My comments are made in an attempt to be constructive about the legislation, hoping that in the process of discussing it we can make some positive amendments to it.

Mr. Conway: What do you think about the comparative merits of the minister and the parliamentary secretary to do that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker. I am being asked by my colleague for --

The Acting Speaker: I would not be distracted by my colleague.

Mr. Roy: I am not really being distracted because he raises a very pertinent issue.

The Acting Speaker: You are in the middle of your presentation.

Mr. Roy: I would have enjoyed having the minister here, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), especially when we are discussing legislation which is so important to his riding -- that is, to allow the municipalities to have bylaws in French. That is for his riding and his personal repertoire. His reputation has been to give leadership in that field.

Mr. Conway: He is embarrassingly aggressive.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I find it somewhat disappointing that the member -- knowing the importance of this legislation, especially for his municipality, the municipality of Ottawa -- is not in his seat to defend this legislation and in the process has sloughed it off on the parliamentary assistant, who, when we get into the finer points of French-English relations sometimes has exhibited some aggressiveness. I am not sure if the parliamentary assistant is fully apprised of the sensitivities of this particular issue.

I do not want to accuse the minister of any particular type of motivation for not being here when we are discussing this legislation, because again I point out that some time ago, when the city of Ottawa, under a bill that I personally sponsored, proposed private legislation to allow the city to enact bylaws in both French and English, the minister advised us that he would be bringing forward legislation to deal with that problem, and that he would have preferred to do it on a provincial basis rather than to do it selectively in certain areas of the province.

3:30 p.m.

In the past I have been extremely critical of this government for its lack of initiative and very often for its lack of leadership, for its unwillingness to accept guidelines or legislation to control its French-language services in Ontario. I have been critical of the government for that.

Mr. Epp: Justifiably so.

Mr. Roy: Yes. As my colleague the member for Waterloo North says, justifiably so. But I must give credit on this occasion. This is an occasion where the minister promised legislation, and his response in presenting the legislation was relatively short. The minister deserves to be congratulated and should be given the credit he deserves for having brought forward the legislation.

Having said that, I must mention quickly that since Confederation we have had a whole series of municipalities, some of which have had as high as 90 per cent francophone residents, and their councils and everything else were attempting to speak in English to try to accommodate the existing legislation. Throughout the best part of this century we have had these municipalities, which have had to enact legislation in English only for their citizens, for 90 per cent of whom the first language is French.

The minister will understand that in today's Ontario, in today's Canada, it is hard for us to accept the fact that those people over all these years were so tolerant and accepted something that as so illogical. I have talked about it on many occasions, only as far as legislation is concerned but also even as far as the courts are concerned: how the francophones of Ontario, who are bona fide citizens of this country and of this province, were forced through all these years into a situation where they could not govern themselves, even locally -- never mind getting services from the Ontario government, but even locally -- and could not enact regulations, legislation or bylaws in their own language.

I do not intend to spend very much time in decrying the past. I see that the chief government whip started applauding with unrestrained enthusiasm when I said I did not want to take up very much time. With that type of enthusiasm, he may well encourage me to continue on the history of the injustices perpetrated by his government against the francophone minority of this province. But, in spite of his encouragement, I shall not do it.

I want to say to the members present, and I am sure my colleague from Timmins will fully understand this fact, that I am not exaggerating when I say that in the past the minority had to suffer injustices that in today's Ontario are totally unacceptable, and I hope that today we are proceeding a step further towards eliminating the injustices against a very important minority in this province.

It is somewhat ironic that a government led by the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) has systematically opposed legislating rights. The approach of the government under his leadership has been consistently to say:

"We are going to give services according to a discretion that is more or less definite. We do not like the idea of being regimented by laws. The rights of all other citizens of Ontario are determined by legislation, but francophones should not be too greedy. Do not ask us to enact legislation guaranteeing your rights, because if you do that, it is not fair; it is not the way we like to do it. We think you should accept our promise. You should just accept the fact that we are saying to you, 'Look, we are going to do it for you, and if on a particular day you step into an office, and we made a promise that on that day we would give you service, and the civil servant who speaks French does not happen to be there, that's too bad. Or if the civil servant on that particular day does not feel like speaking French to you, or we do not feel like answering your letter in French, or we don't feel like giving you French-language services, come back tomorrow. We'll see what happens tomorrow. We may have a different attitude.'"

Those are the abuses that are perpetrated when there is no legislation guaranteeing rights. It should be understood that the way the process operates is that all citizens, no matter from what group, when they want to feel they are full members of a community, when they want something fully guaranteed, the way to do it is by legislation. That is something this government has refused to do for its Franco-Ontarian minority, both in the Constitution and at the provincial level.

In spite of the fact the government has said it opposes legislating rights, occasionally there is a chink in the armour and something happens. This is an exception that undermines the general rule, the legislation here today, amending the Municipal Act, putting something into law. It is a further step forward. It has been done in the field of justice. In fact, the Attorney General, as late as last week, put forward amendments to the Judicature Act, to guarantee civil court services in certain areas of the province. Again, he had to do it by way of legislation, and that is a further crack in the armour. In other areas, especially in the field of education, we have further guarantees given by way of legislation.

As a member of the Legislature, I am extremely pleased to be here, to be able to speak about this legislation, to be able to applaud and support it. There are a couple of areas where I wish the minister and the parliamentary assistant would give some consideration to having legislation that is fully equitable both to the French-language minority and to the English-speaking majority in this province. I refer more specifically to subsection 7(4) of Bill 150, which states that the minutes of the proceedings shall be kept in English or, where so authorized by a bylaw of the council, in both English and French.

The point I want to make to the ministry is that, as I understand this provision, it states, "If you pass a bylaw allowing you to have minutes of proceedings of committees, etc., in the French and English languages, then your minutes shall be kept in both languages." I do not have any objection to that provision. Obviously, if all the proceedings take place in English, it would appear to be more sensible to keep the minutes in English. If they proceed in French, then the minutes should be kept in French.

But the ministry should make available some measure of financial assistance if it insists that, no matter which language they proceed in -- and that is the way the legislation should read -- if a bylaw is passed permitting the use of French and English in a particular area, in a particular municipality, and if these proceedings take place in one of the two languages, they should be kept in both languages, whether they are passed in English or French.

I am sure you appreciate that translating is an expensive business, Mr. Speaker, that it can incur considerable expense in the processes of municipalities, especially today when they are so hard-pressed for funds. If the ministry insists that the minutes of these proceedings -- the bylaws, for instance -- should be in both languages, at that point there should be some financial assistance to the municipality to get the processes going. I am not sure that there are not provisions now within the government whereby municipalities can receive assistance for this type of service.

3:40 p.m.

The other provision of the statute I want to discuss with the parliamentary assistant is the question of subsection 7(7). It states: "Where any form, book, document or other paper of any kind is submitted by a municipality to a ministry of the government of Ontario in French, the municipality shall, at the request of the ministry to which the form, book, document or other paper was submitted, supply the minister with an English translation thereof."

Fair enough, if it is supplied; but again, I make this provision: In order for the law to be perfectly equitable once this bylaw has been passed in a municipality, I ask the parliamentary assistant -- maybe he can discuss it with his enlightened minister -- why can such requests be made only if the book, form or document is submitted in French? What if it is submitted in English and the ministry, for whatever reason, wants it to be in French? I cannot give a particular example for the time being.

For instance, having received a resolution from a particular municipality, the minister may well want to transfer or transmit the document to a French-speaking area, and he may want it in French. I ask the parliamentary assistant, why would section 7 not say that if the book, form or document is submitted in French and or English, the minister can require that document to be in English and or French? It seems to me there might be use for this and at least it would appear to make the legislation far more equitable.

For these reasons, I hope the minister, in some area of the government, will give consideration to the fact that municipalities that will be proceeding in this area are entitled to some form of financial assistance to respond properly to the needs of the minority in their area.

Those are two comments that I make quickly on the legislation. I am sure all the members are supportive of them; certainly the members on this side are. We will do everything to see that the legislation is passed as quickly as possible so that finally, in Ontario, local governments in areas where they represent the francophone minority can truly operate and respond to the needs of their communities in French.

M. le Président, je voudrais certainement dire -- I notice as I switch into French that the Hansard people right away are taking down every word I am saying. In any event, I will go back to French, because I want to make sure Hansard does not miss a word I am saying in that language.

Monsieur le Président, il est certain que, en présentant des projets de loi aussi importants que ceux-ci, on ne peut laisser passer l'occasion de dire quelques mots en français.

Ainsi que je le mentionnais auparavant, je pense qu'il était grand temps d'avoir une telle législation en Ontario. Durant presqu'un siècle, Monsieur le Président, nous avons eu des gouvernements locaux représentant souvent une population qui était dans certaines régions à 50, 70, 80 pour cent francophone. Mais à cause de la législation ontarienne, cette population ne pouvait passer de règlements ou présenter de documents dans la langue de la majorité qui était à cette époque-là francophone. On avait alors, Monsieur le Président, une situation qui était non seulement illogique, mais parfaitement injuste.

Alors, Monsieur le Président, sans vouloir critiquer trop longuement mes collègues du côté du gouvernement--Dieu sait que je ne manque pas beaucoup d'occasions de le faire--mais je regarde mon collègue, le député de Timmins, qui a un sourire presque angélique.

Je ne veux pas être trop méchant envers le gouvernement, mais je voudrais dire simplement qu'il est temps d'avoir une législation comme celle-ci. Même si le gouvernement Davis se fait un devoir de répéter de façon constante qu'il s'oppose à légiférer en ce qui concerne les droits de la minorité franco-ontarienne, il arrive tout de même que l'on accepte, parfois difficilement, ce qui est important et nécessaire pour avoir une législation qui garantisse les droits de la minorité. En voici un bel exemple, Monsieur le Président, avec le projet de loi 150.

Je voudrais dire, Monsieur le Président, qu'avant même cette législation, certaines municipalités présentaient des règlements en français, ce que le gouvernement acceptait ou peut-être tolérait. Je cite en exemple une municipalité de mon comté, celle de Vanier--et je voudrais la féliciter--qui présente depuis au moins dix ans des règlements, des documents, des résolutions, etc., dans les deux langues. C'était techniquement contre la loi de le faire. Mais le gouvernement a finalement décidé de faire preuve de bon sens et de présenter un projet de loi que nous sommes heureux d'appuyer aujourd'hui. Nous espérons que le plus grand nombre de municipalités possible va se servir de cette législation et encourager les citoyens à se servir d'un droit essentiel: en d'autres termes, qu'ils soient capables de se gouverner, de représenter une minorité importante dans leur secteur.

Cela me fait donc énormément plaisir, Monsieur le Président, de soutenir ce projet de loi. J'ai déjà mentionné en anglais deux secteurs où je voudrais voir plus d'équité et je n'ai pas l'intention de me répéter. Je voudrais simplement ajouter qu'avec une législation comme celle-ci, le gouvernement devrait demander, lorsque c'est nécessaire, la traduction française d'un document présenté en anglais, puisqu'il demande la traduction anglaise d'un document présenté en français.

Il devrait également s'assurer qu'il accordera les fonds nécessaires pour que certaines municipalités puissent satisfaire aux nécessités que cette loi va susciter. Je suis certain, Monsieur le Président, que mes collègues--surtout celui de Timmins--vont se rendre compte que dans une époque difficile sur le plan économique comme celle que nous vivons, certaines municipalités risquent d'être réticentes à présenter des règlements dans les deux langues en raison de la hausse du coût que cela va engendrer: et les citoyens vont peut-être critiquer en disant ne pas vouloir voir augmenter leurs impôts. Il faudrait être sûr, Monsieur le Président, que ce ne sera pas le cas. Il faut s'assurer que des secteurs de la province ne nieront pas un droit fondamental à leur minorité à cause du coût. J'espère que le gouvernement va octroyer les fonds nécessaires pour encourager--surtout au début--la prestation de services dans les deux langues, au niveau municipal.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and your extreme interest in every word that I had to say about this legislation. I can tell from your demeanour that you are fully in support of every sentence, of every period, that I have uttered in relation to this particular piece of legislation. So, sensing the unanimity of this assembly, I certainly see no reason why it should not be passed quickly.

I will make this comment: I am sure that having fully reviewed this legislation, the members would not wish me to sit down without having an opportunity to say certain words about one aspect of this legislation which is missing. The legislation talks about electors in paragraph 1 but nowhere does it define an elector as is done in other legislation.

I want to put this point on the record. I am very disappointed that the government of Ontario, in November 1982, still has not accepted the fact that the people who should vote in municipal elections have one criterion and one criterion alone. There should be one basic principle, and that is simply that they be Canadian citizens. That should be the very simple and straightforward criterion for anyone who wants to vote, but that is not the case in Ontario.

We still have one standard in all legislation, in many statutes provincially, that says you have to be a Canadian citizen or British subject. That does not make sense today especially in a province such as this and in a city such as this, where we have groups from all over the world living. It does not make sense to treat one sector of our population differently. It does not make sense that we say to people who happen to be from Pakistan, who are considered to be British subjects, that they can vote. I may be wrong about Pakistan but, if they are from India or Australia, we say to them: "If you happen to be from that area, you can vote as long as you have the residency requirement." If they happen to be from the United States --

Mr. Epp: Or from Buffalo.

Mr. Roy: Or if they are from Buffalo, as my friend said, they cannot vote. If they happen to be from --

Mr. Nixon: The Falkland Islands.

Mr. Roy: If they are from the Falkland Islands, as my colleague the House leader said, they can vote. We have argued about this since I have been here. We feel it just does not make sense.

What makes it more pressing than ever, having in mind that this is legislation that we are talking about on November 2, 1982, and the election is going to be held on November 8, 1982, is the fact that we have a Charter. We had a new Charter of Rights passed and accepted in April 1982.

I am always loath to give a free legal opinion, but on this particular occasion I want to share with the members a great concern that I have from a legal point of view. At some point, if the government allows British citizens to vote in municipal elections, there will be somebody who is going to challenge one of these elections.

What does my colleague the parliamentary assistant say about that? He said something but I did not quite hear him.

Mr. Rotenberg: Also the provincial elections.

Mr. Roy: It should be, but the problem is that we are having a municipal election on November 8. That is going to be the first one to be challenged.

Mr. Nixon: They continue to exclude judges, which is against the charter.

Mr. Roy: That may well be another area that our House leader is talking about, but I doubt if any judges will be challenging it, because apparently most of them have decided that they do not want to vote. In any event, the fact remains that at some point someone is going to challenge the results of one of these municipal elections which are going to take place next week. I suggest that someone is going to be successful.

I see my colleague the parliamentary assistant is shaking his head. I say to him that if he wants to have a little wager on this, please be my guest. In fact, if he wants to wait to make a wager, he can discuss it with his friend the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry); if he gives the member an opinion contrary to mine, he should bet a lot of money on my side. The last time the Attorney General gave a constitutional opinion and tried to defend it before the Supreme Court of Canada, he missed out nine to zip. The judges went against him.

The issue of British subjects is clearly against the charter. The charter states that Canadian citizens are the ones who are entitled to vote in municipal and provincial elections. In a matter of a very few years, section 15, which talks about equality before the law, will strike down any legislation that gives preference to a group of citizens because of their place of origin.

It is clearly against the charter, and I find it clearly irresponsible on the part of the minister, knowing about this -- I am sure he and the parliamentary assistant have received complaints about this -- that he would allow a further municipal election on November 8 without having amended the provincial legislation and taken out the wording about British subjects. Further down the line, if a whole series of elections is challenged and the courts rule that our laws are discriminatory, we will be in a fine pickle indeed when each and every municipal election in Ontario is challenged.

I say to the minister, he should bring forward the legislation. We will pass it before the municipal elections; we have time to do that. Let him bring forward the necessary legislation so that when the election comes around, the people who vote will all be on the same footing. It is very simple: We are all Canadians; that is the criterion for allowing people to vote. Not only would the minister be rendering justice to all the people of this province, but at the same time he will ensure that none of the elections will be challenged.

Mr. Cassidy: Monsieur le Président, je tiens à dire que le Nouveau Parti Démocratique préconisait depuis longtemps la reconnaissance des droits linguistiques des Franco-ontariens aux niveaux municipal et provincial en Ontario.

Ce fut une lutte dans laquelle nous avons rencontré une résistance continuelle, et qui a pu sembler parfois perpétuelle, de la part du gouvernement conservateur. Je reconnais qu'avec le projet de loi 150, le gouvernement a fait un petit pas en avant, en accordant aux municipalités le droit nouveau d'utiliser le français pour leurs règlements, dans les débats et les rapports publiés par le Conseil municipal.

Comme mon collègue M. Breaugh, d'Oshawa, a indiqué, nous nous opposons au projet de loi 150 pour plusieurs raisons. Tout d'abord, parce qu'il s'agit d'un bill omnibus et qu'il est impossible d'en séparer tous les éléments.

Il faut convenir également que le gouvernement a fait, en 1982, l'effort qui convient pour la reconnaissance des droits des Franco-ontariens. J'aimerais bien, Monsieur le Président, vous indiquer brièvement les points saillants de l'article 7 du projet de loi et comment celui-ci semble insuffisant pour reconnaître les vrais droits des Franco-ontariens.

Il me semble néanmoins que le progrès--car il y a progrès n'est pas suffisant. Notons par exemple le cas d'une municipalité ayant une majorité de francophones: le projet de loi 150 n'assure pas aux citoyens, aux conseillers de cette municipalité le droit d'utiliser le français ni le droit d'avoir les règlements en français. Ce qui veut dire qu'en Ontario, l'anglais peut continuer à régner dans les municipalités, même celles à majorité francophone.

4 p.m.

Je tiens à suggérer au ministre ou au secrétaire parlementaire le cas de la situation qui existe au sein du conseil scolaire à Iroquois Falls. Voilà la situation d'une municipalité avec une forte majorité francophone, des lois qui existent depuis longtemps, en principe pour garantir des écoles secondaires françaises aux élèves de la communauté avec une telle majorité de langue française. Dans ce cas-là, le conseil scolaire s'est carrément opposé à la reconnaissance des droits des Franco-ontariens, au point que le conseil scolaire ne refuse pas simplement les demandes de la communauté ou ce qui vient du conseil consultatif des Franco-ontariens, mais aussi les interventions de la Commission des langues d'instruction qui a indiqué très clairement plusieurs fois que le conseil scolaire doit donner de plein droit à la communauté franco-ontarienne sa propre école secondaire française. Lorsque l'utilisation du français est un privilège--comme c'est le cas en Ontario--il arrive souvent que des conseillers, des conseils municipaux ou scolaires où la majorité est anglophone, refusent toujours de reconnaître les droits des Franco-ontariens. Cette situation peut malheureusement continuer, malgré la législation proposée aujourd'hui.

I am suggesting that the minister and the government should have done a great deal more consulting and thinking about this particular legislation coming before them, if it was really the intention of the government to guarantee to communities where there is a substantial amount of French spoken, that French would be recognized in their municipal councils. The law says that French --

Hon. Mr. Pope: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Information?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no such --

The Deputy Speaker: Well, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: On a point of order, then, if you want. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has indicated, in French, that the anglophone majority in Iroquois Falls has obtained control of the school board and is preventing the francophones in Iroquois Falls from obtaining their rights.

If the honourable member had spent a little more time researching the issue he would know that on the one hand, there is a survey which indicates that a slight majority of francophones wish to have a separate French language entity and on the other hand, there is a petition signed by a majority of francophones in the community opposing a French-language entity. What the responsible people in the community are trying to do is to resolve the issue and --

Mr. Nixon: Why doesn't the minister make a speech?

The Deputy Speaker: I tend to agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member has indicated in French something that is not factually correct.

The Deputy Speaker: You will have your time.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, it is a very important issue and the minister should not in any way colour the issue.

The fact remains that the school board for Iroquois Falls, which governs the Iroquois Falls situation, has consistently refused to accept the recommendations of the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario. That is the situation which is recommending a separate French-language school.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What was factually incorrect and what was said here was that the anglophones had elected that school board in the last election. The member knows that is wrong. He knows the ward system in the area.

Mr. Roy: I put the facts as they are.

Hon. Mr. Pope: All right, the member put the facts on the table. The facts on the table are that in every single ward French-language electors --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Pope: -- elect the members to the school board and in most wards, the majority is francophone.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, what is going on here?

The Deputy Speaker: I know, but he will have a chance to debate --

Hon. Mr. Pope: He should tell the truth for a change.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister himself should know that the way the system is set up makes it extremely difficult for French-language electors. They do not elect the majority of most school boards because school boards which govern high schools are controlled by the English-speaking and Protestant majority.

I am not exactly sure of the situation in Iroquois Falls except that I know there has been report after report and recommendation after recommendation coming from the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario.

If the minister is disowning the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, he had better say so publicly. It is a creation of his government. If he wants to break ranks with the government, that is fine, but some years ago that was set up as a means of providing an impartial look at the situation so one would not get the contentious type of comments one is getting from the minister today.

I am aware it is an anguished and a difficult situation in Iroquois Falls, but I am upset by what the minister has to say. I am upset by his suggestion. Again and again, the government has come along when we have objected to something it has done and said. "We have the majority, so stuff it."

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

If one wants to look at the facts, this government was elected by the votes of something like 28 per cent of the eligible voters of the province in the last provincial election. Maybe it was 25 per cent. That is the majority it uses to jackboot its way around this place from time to time.

The fact is we have a system by which we make decisions and, if the majority of the people in Iroquois Falls have decided they want to have their own school and if the law guarantees that, then it seems to me it should be there. The problem with this piece of legislation --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about the minister's legislation, if he would just wait for a minute.

The Deputy Speaker: He would like to make a point of order. We always entitle members to make points of order.

Mr. Grande: Make it a point of order now.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order. The bill we are dealing with is the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act has absolutely no jurisdiction over schools, school boards or school board elections. I did not interrupt when the first point was made but, with respect, I feel any debate on school boards, school board elections or anything about schools is not in order under the Municipal Act. It is not part of this bill nor this ministry.

The Deputy Speaker: What does the member for Ottawa Centre say about that?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not address his colleague but waited until I talked about schools.

Mr. Rotenberg: I let you make your point.

Hon. Mr. Pope: You were saying something in French which was inaccurate.

Mr. Cassidy: The point I want to make is the reason for introducing that is not extraneous at all because the questions of French language rights in this province do cover many different areas. They are not just in one area whether it be municipalities, schools or something like that. It is the whole question of French language rights on which this government has been extremely reluctant to act over many years.

The point I am making to the parliamentary assistant is, what is going to happen three or four years after this bill is passed if a French language councillor gets on a municipal council somewhere in the province, and it could even be in an area which has a majority of francophones, says, "I want to speak in French," and then turns to see what backing he has in law? There is no backing.

The council may have debates in French and in English, but French will not even be recognized as a language, as a right, in municipal councils in Ontario if this bill goes forward in the present form.

It says, "Every council and every committee of council may conduct its proceedings in English or French or in both English and French." It "may conduct its proceedings," but it does not indicate there is any barrier to a council passing a bylaw saying, "English only spoken here." I believe that is a serious neglect in this bill and I am surprised that the member for Ottawa East would not have pointed to that and have indicated a necessary change was desirable and should be made in the legislation.

If I can address the parliamentary assistant, this bill can go to committee and I would suggest seriously that he accept an amendment or propose an amendment which indicates French is an acceptable language in any municipal council in Ontario.

In terms of a council having its bylaws in both French and English, I do not think a council in the Niagara Peninsula or north of Toronto should necessarily be required to have all of its bylaws in French as well as in English. There may not be cause, but I suspect this would be a better bill if the minister had indicated that the government had decided to set out criteria for bilingual municipalities.

4:16 p.m.

Comme vous le savez, M. le secrétaire parlementaire, cela fait longtemps maintenant que le Conseil municipal d'Ottawa a déclaré cette ville bilingue. Il y a longtemps aussi que les règlements de la ville d'Ottawa existent dans les deux langues officielles de notre pays. Toutes les municipalités de la région n'ont pas encore franchi ce pas. C'est une étape à venir et qui doit être encouragée.

Le projet de loi devrait mentionner que toutes les municipalités ont le droit de se déclarer bilingue -- et cela veut dire le français et l'anglais -- plutôt que d'indiquer simplement qu'elles peuvent utiliser les deux langues officielles du pays.

Je me souviens que récemment encore, en 1974, au moment de l'élection provinciale de Carleton-Est, nous avons fait une étude sur les droits officiels des Franco-ontariens. Il y a huit ans seulement, il n'était pas possible de se marier, de naître, de mourir, ou même d'avoir un permis de conduire en français dans la province de l'Ontario. De nombreux documents officiels ontariens n'étaient disponibles qu'en anglais. Vous n'aviez pas alors le droit de recevoir un enseignement en français. La situation s'est certainement améliorée, mais elle reste parfois difficile, telle celle d'Iroquois Falls que nous avons citée et où le comité consultatif a demandé une école secondaire exclusivement en français mais s'est vu refuser ce droit par le conseil scolaire. Les Franco-ontariens n'ont reçu aucun soutien, pas même de la part du ministère de l'Education.

It has only been eight years since there were almost no rights for Franco-Ontarians in this province. We have begun to make some progress. We have got birth certificates in French, driver's licences, official documents and forms, and that kind of thing. None the less, this legislation is still far too timid and feeble a step in relation to what I believe this province is ready for now and what I believe the municipalities are ready for now.

Therefore, I would like to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he seriously consider the changes I have indicated. One would be to ensure that French may be used as a matter of right and not of privilege, that no bylaw may be passed in this province to exclude a councillor from speaking in French or to exclude someone who wishes to come and petition or make a presentation to a municipal council from speaking in the other official language of the country, French. That is the very least that should be in the law in 1982.

I also want to differ from my colleague for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) with respect to the final portion of this section of the bill, which I think is patronizing, paternalistic, overbearing and undesirable and should be removed. This is the section that says to the municipalities that, while they can prepare documents in French and that is their right, for goodness' sake do not try to make the province of Ontario understand them.

This section of the bill says that if in its wisdom some department of the provincial government does not like having received a document from a municipality in French, then they can go back to the municipality and say, "Fellows, translate it into English before we have to deal with it."

There used to be a phrase for that. I hesitate to use it in this House, but people used to say to Franco-Ontarians and to French-Canadians, "Speak white." I am afraid that this in essence is what the law is saying right here where it says: "Where any form, book, document or other paper of any kind is submitted by a municipality" --

Mr. Harris: I never heard of it in 30 years.

Mr. Cassidy: You never heard it in 30 years? Well, it has been around this country until very recently, and it is in this piece of legislation right here. It says, "Speak white." I will read it to you.

Mr. Harris: You made it up.

Mr. Cassidy: "Where any form, book, document or other paper of any kind is submitted by a municipality to a ministry of the government of Ontario in French, the municipality shall, at the request of the minister of the ministry to which the form, book, document or other paper was submitted, supply the minister with an English translation thereof."

This means that in the case of the united counties of Prescott and Russell where the population is overwhelmingly French-speaking, and where as a matter of course the papers and reports coming to council are largely being produced in French since they are now guaranteed this right, if the clerk treasurer of that township writes a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in French, being more comfortable in French, this section of the law gives the ministry the legal right to send it back and say -- and I suppose the letter would be written in English -- "We are sorry, but would you please speak white, would you please translate this letter and send us a translation along with your original copy?"

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Shame on you.

Mr. Cassidy: Shame on this legislation. Why shame on me?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Shame on you, the way you twist and distort the truth,

Mr. Cassidy: Is a letter a paper? Of course a letter is a paper. It certainly can be interpreted that way and I am sure a small municipality is not in a position to take this matter up to the Supreme Court of Ontario or of Canada to determine whether it has the right to communicate with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in either English or in French.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You insult your own party.

Mr. Grande: You should know what distortion of the truth is.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was all sweetness and light. He said everybody supports this. While we definitely support the principle that is involved here of recognizing the rights of municipalities to be bilingual, and there is no question about that because we were there a long time before this government was, what I am suggesting is the section of the bill has been badly drafted. The section of the bill should have been rethought before it was put in. Now that it is here, one of our functions in this Legislature is to seek to improve it and to seek to make it better than it was when it came in.

I simply suggest subsection 7 should be removed. If a municipality has copies of a report in both English and French and someone picks up the phone and says, "Do you happen to have a copy of this in English?" if it is available, I am sure a municipality would co-operate. I do not believe a municipality which happens to communicate with the ministry in French should be required to do so in English as well, not only because of the expense but also because of the principle.

After the progress the ministry and the government keep on telling us has been made in terms of French-language services, it surely is not beyond possibility that there will be civil servants within the ministry capable of dealing with some correspondence or communication in French without the necessity of having it translated into English.

I could comment on other sections of the bill. I would find it helpful if the parliamentary assistant would speak to some of these items. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) has been heating things up here a bit with some of his comments.

I am not sure where he stands on this bill. I am not even sure where he stands on the question of French-language rights. But at the end of this debate perhaps the parliamentary assistant could indicate whether the government would be prepared to let this go to a committee -- we can make it go to a committee anyway -- to make the changes I have proposed.

Notice that while I would like to see it included, I am not suggesting an amendment that would require a municipality to be bilingual if more than a certain proportion of its population is French speaking. We may come to that before very long, but I am suggesting two or three amendments which I think were overlooked in the drafting, which I think the parliamentary assistant and his party could accept and which would be seen as being a reasonable concession and a further step forward as far as the French-language community is concerned.

Let us not get ourselves into the position where a year or two hence someone picks up the bill and finds that simple basic rights of communicating in French in his municipal council or with the government of Ontario have actually been taken away because of what was dressed up as a well-meaning step forward by the government.

Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais en conclusion commenter la suggestion du député d'Ottawa-Est, à savoir que les citoyens canadiens doivent avoir le droit de participer aux affaires municipales.

4:20 p.m.

For a long time, people in our party have suggested that municipal government is the government very close to people and the one that deals with such issues as streets, community centres, recreation, welfare services, services to people and that kind of thing. Since municipal government has little or nothing to do with issues such as foreign affairs and foreign trade that properly belong just to nationals of Canada, I would like to suggest to the member for Ottawa East that rather than be stingy with the right to participate in municipal affairs, we should be seeing municipal affairs as a step into the democratic process for people who are not yet Canadian citizens, including many who may not have had as developed a tradition of democracy in their country as it is in many parts of Canada. Whether it is developed in this province or not is perhaps another question.

I am suggesting that the question of giving the vote only to British subjects is antiquated and should not stay as it stands. I would have thought that -- [remarks in Italian] -- and that applies to people from Portugal, people from Poland --

Mr. Rotenberg: How is your Polish?

Mr. Cassidy: Not so good. Probably the parliamentary assistant will reply in Polish. There are also people from the Philippines and Vietnam and Hong Kong. We have got a very rich mosaic of people who are becoming Canadians. It seems to me it would be a very healthy kind of half-way step into participation in public life for people to begin by having a municipal right to vote.

Certainly they pay their taxes and they are very much aware of them. Too often, I am afraid the people who live in neighbourhoods like Rockcliffe and Forest Hill forget the mosaic of the communities in which they live. Too often they make assumptions about what should be theirs by right, while denying certain services to people who are new Canadians, newly arrived in our province and our cities.

This is not part of the bill. I recognize that, and that is why I shall close off at this point, but I would suggest that could be something the ministry should consider as part of the commitment, for which we even have a minister, for goodness' sake, to the ethnic mosaic that exists here in this province.

The last point I would make is that I am disappointed with the minister and with the parliamentary assistant about the fact that the opportunity that could have been taken in this bill has not been taken to legitimize and to assure anyone who may be concerned, that the referenda taking place on disarmament in next Monday's election will not be challenged in the courts in any way.

The parliamentary assistant knows that in the borough of York in Metropolitan Toronto. the question of disarmament was taken off the ballot because of the fact that with all of the assurances that came from the Attorney General, the government was not prepared to give third reading to Mr. Epp's bill, which I had seconded, or to introduce its own bill or its own amendments which would have simply ensured that particular referendum was legitimate.

As I pointed out in letters to the ministry, if the ministry was concerned about precedents as a consequence of that referendum, by not acting, far more precedents will have been created than had an action been taken, such as an amendment that was included in this particular bill.

I say that because on Monday the referenda will take place in Ottawa and Toronto and many places. After that, the indications are that should a legal challenge be attempted it will fail. If no legal challenge is attempted, or if a legal challenge that is attempted fails, a precedent will then have been set for any municipality to have a referendum on almost any subject it pleases, regardless of whether or not it comes specifically within the terms of municipal powers under the Municipal Act. I am acknowledging that the questions of disarmament do not seem to be specifically referred to in the Municipal Act. Questions about capital punishment, abortion and energy conservation, all kinds of questions will in fact be legitimized.

It is my understanding that the minister and the ministry were trying to prevent any number of referenda on any particular subject having legitimacy.

Had the government accepted the bill of the member for Waterloo and myself to legitimize this specific referendum, then the precedent would have been set that by parliamentary action in the Legislature a specific referendum on a specific subject of which the Legislature approved was okay. The broader question about whether referenda in general were okay or not, would effectively not have been decided either by the action or nonaction of the courts.

I am suggesting, therefore, that given the aims which I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) made fairly clear -- that is, he does not want to have a lot of referenda -- then he was wrong to adopt the strategy of bottling up the legislation which, I would remind the parliamentary secretary, was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the members of this Legislature.

When you get a noncontroversial area like this, one which the members themselves have been involved in and endorsed on a nonpartisan basis -- some 72 members of the Legislature endorsed resolutions around the subject of disarmament and it was done on a nonpartisan basis -- it makes a mockery of the whole process of private members' bills when the government in its wisdom, or a minister in his wisdom, then decides to bottle up action which the Legislature clearly intended and wished to take.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise particularly with respect to the first paragraph of the bill which has brought forward certain comments concerning the qualifications of electors.

As members may recall, I introduced into this sitting a reworking of the bill which I introduced in 1977 to amend the Election Act. In its 1982 emanation, the bill removes the phrase "or other British subject" from the list of those persons qualified to vote in Ontario provincial elections.

At the time I introduced that bill, I said it would be only natural that municipal voting privileges should be similarly amended so there would be only one qualification for voting in municipal or provincial elections in Ontario. That, of course, would be Canadian citizenship. In my view it is unrealistic to expect that anyone who comes to Canada should be allowed to vote in provincial or municipal elections without being a citizen.

I find that the term "British subject" has no meaning since there are no longer any British subjects as such. It is a silly anachronism in Ontario law. Perhaps as part of our bicentennial celebrations in 1984, that term could finally be sent to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

It is true that there are now people called Commonwealth citizens, but there is no longer any person called a British subject. We have seen the four-page document printed by the minister, telling clerks how they could allow someone from Nauru or Lesotho or Kiribati to vote in a municipal election. It may be that we have persons from those countries who are skilled in their knowledge of the Ontario municipal scene, but I rather doubt it.

I believe it is no longer appropriate to allow persons who have no particular background in our way of government to vote because they are so-called British subjects and to deny that to others who may well come from other nations with a much stronger tradition, background and development in the kinds of relationships which we have in Ontario.

The question then becomes, to whom should we be unfair? Should we be unfair to those who come from other parts of the Commonwealth because they are not citizens, or should they be given an advantage? On the other hand, should we put persons from everywhere else in the world at a disadvantage? Some may say that my proposal has been to treat each of them unfairly. That, presumably, is the view of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who would prefer --

Mr. Stokes: Is there reciprocity?

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is not, of course, reciprocity. The only nation that allows citizens from other countries to vote in its own elections is, I presume, the United Kingdom, and that is a problem they are stuck with. We are not.

While there is some merit in the view expressed by the member for Ottawa Centre that the municipal election scene has a learning opportunity for the landed immigrant -- there is some merit in that view; I do not deny it -- it is still my preference, clearly, that Canadian citizenship, easily attained after three years' residence, should be the common criterion for everyone no matter from what country around the world he or she comes.

I thought it was important to set out that distinction because, now that we have not only our Constitution but a national anthem and a variety of other Canadian aspects, we will continue to do ourselves a disservice to allow this kind of tradition to remain. At one time in our history it had some merit; there is no question about that. When those coming to Canada and to Ontario were most likely coming from the British Isles, where the forms of government were similar, to be able to vote after one year's residence was not unreasonable in those days. But those days are long since past, as the Empire is past. A commonwealth of nations, freely associating with each other under the recognition or formal operation of the monarchy, has developed in a most substantial and pleasing way to me as someone who is a very strong proponent of the Canadian monarchy.

Since the word "electors" is referred to, it is worthwhile to place on the record that Canadian citizenship is the sort of thing we should be favouring; that Canadian citizenship is easily and readily acquired by persons coming from any country of the world, whether they happen to have the formality of a connection to the Commonwealth or not. It is the kind of theme that may not be particularly involved, I suggest, but still does remind us, as we look at paragraph 8 of section 1 where we define persons entitled to vote, that its time has come.

I hope that either my amendment will pass eventually in the Election Act in the same manner in which it was proposed five years ago, or that changes may be considered even in this bill, so that we can get on with what I think is a particularly important pro-Canadian and not anti-anyone else attitude that I look forward to seeing.

With respect to the use of language in the other sections, and certainly with respect to the translation form, those are matters that clearly should be considered in committee because of the clear differences in understanding as to what the provisions mean. In the meantime, I confine my remarks simply to that one theme, which I have been interested in for some time.

Mr. Samis: Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais parler brièvement de ce projet de loi, surtout parce que j'ai plus de 40 pour cent de mes électeurs d'origine canadienne-française. Si l'on regarde l'histoire de ma région, celle de la population francophone de l'Ontario, avec la lutte qui la caractérise pour l'égalité de nos droits linguistiques, éducationnels et culturels, il ressort que c'est dans le domaine municipal que la lutte a été la plus dure. Plusieurs municipalités ont simplement failli établir leurs droits que je crois légitimes.

Alors, nombre de mes électeurs vont se demander pourquoi en Ontario, a l'Assemblée législative, vous n'avez un projet de loi que maintenant…cent quinze ans après la Confédération. Pourquoi discuter des droits des francophones au niveau municipal? Pourquoi discuter de cette question quatre ans après le fameux référendum au Québec? Pourquoi en discuter dans le seul contexte municipal, et non au niveau provincial? Pourquoi ne pas avoir une politique globale dans le contexte provincial? Pourquoi ne pas discuter d'une politique qui reconnaisse les droits fondamentaux linguistiques de la minorité francophone en Ontario? Il y a quatre ans, je crois, que j'ai présenté mon projet de loi pour une reconnaissance officielle des droits linguistiques de la population francophone en Ontario. C'était l'année où nous avons eu un débat sur le projet de loi présenté par mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est, projet que le Premier ministre a malheureusement fait avorter.

Je crois que le projet de loi que nous avons devant nous aujourd'hui montre le manque de leadership du Premier ministre de l'Ontario vis-à-vis des droits linguistiques de notre minorité. Il est vrai que nous avons fait des progrès quant aux services offerts à la population francophone: par exemple, dans le domaine de la santé, dans le domaine juridique et celui de l'enseignement. Mais la chose dont nous manquons le plus, c'est le symbolisme. Nous avons besoin que le Premier ministre, le gouvernement de l'Ontario, reconnaissent les droits fondamentaux des francophones. Nous faisons des progrès par ci par là, et je pense que le projet de loi présenté aujourd'hui est un signe de progrès. Mais nous manquons d'une reconnaissance officielle. Monsieur Hatfield, Premier ministre conservateur, l'a fait au Nouveau-Brunswick: il a reconnu que les francophones n'ont pas seulement besoin de lois ou de changements, mais d'un symbolisme: la reconnaissance officielle de leurs droits, de leur position dans leur province. Le Manitoba l'a fait il y a cent douze ans, dans l'Acte de la Confédération. Ici en Ontario, le système est très différent. Nous faisons le travail par petits morceaux, mais nous manquons de l'élément le plus important qui est la reconnaissance des droits fondamentaux dans le cadre d'un projet de loi général.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly that in my riding, which has a large French-Canadian population, the question of municipal services and the rights of the linguistic minority at the municipal level is still a live issue. The council is conducted mainly in English, but we do have some people on city council who regard French as their mother language. And among the francophone population the question would be why has it taken so long for even this small piece of progress to be brought forth on the floor of the Ontario Legislature. Here we are, talking 115 years after the date of Confederation and after the famous referendum in Quebec.

We have made progress in Ontario, I am the first to admit, with respect to minority rights, especially in the field of services, in the courts, in judicial services and in education and we have made some progress in health services. We still have a way to go, but we have made progress, and to a certain extent this bill is another demonstration of this piecemeal approach. It is always the back door approach.

Fundamentally, what we are lacking in Ontario is an official commitment from the Premier (Mr. Davis) to recognize the basic rights of the two founding groups in this province and to recognize linguistic and cultural equality in Ontario.

Richard Hatfield did it in New Brunswick. I think it took a lot of courage for a Tory Premier to challenge the traditions of that province and to come out with probably the most comprehensive act recognizing minority rights at all levels -- not just in education but at all levels; and he has stood by it. He has had to overcome a lot of opposition within his own caucus and among his own supporters. And he has been able to get re-elected, I would emphasize, for a record mandate in New Brunswick politics. Still that policy has become law and is now becoming part of the fabric of New Brunswick. I only wish the Premier of this province had the same courage, the same foresight and the same basic guts and commitment that Richard Hatfield has demonstrated towards the minority in his province.

It is interesting to note that last week it was announced in Manitoba that they will be bringing in a modified system of simultaneous translation in the Legislature. All members there then will be able to speak and listen in either of the official languages in that province.

4:40 p.m.

One other thing I want to mention is that I have some concern about the effects of the bill in a place like Penetanguishene. I know there are strong feelings there on both sides, but especially among those opposed to any form of what they consider a concession. They still seem to be fighting the battle of the Plains of Abraham in certain segments of their community. I am concerned that a person who wanted to speak in French could effectively be denied that right -- and I would consider it to be a right, not a privilege -- if the majority of the council passed a resolution saying that everything would be conducted in English and that all documents and matters would be registered or recorded only in English.

Once again the people in the minority group are at the mercy of the majority. It has been proven over and over again that this makes it very difficult in certain cases. Because if they do not have the full force of the law behind them and it is left up to local option, if it is clear that the Premier is not committed to full, complete, official equality, it then allows certain people at the local level who do not accept the idea of equality, who do not accept the duality of Canada and who do not respect minority rights, to use the force of their majority to deny what I would consider to be a basic right to someone who is a francophone. I have real reservations about whether the wording of section 7 would adequately protect the rights of someone in a situation such as that in Penetanguishene.

My colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) made some worthwhile suggestions regarding section 7 and the question of funding. Obviously this would mean added costs for the municipality, and those who are either anti-French or are opposed to minority rights, those who are lukewarm on the issue or who do not see the need to grant this particular right, would cite the question of costs. They would say: "We cannot afford it; therefore we cannot do it. It is not a question of being anti-French; it is just a question of dollars and cents."

In cases such as this, where you are talking about a minority, the province is responsible for the provision of adequate funding for those municipalities that need it whether they are in eastern Ontario or in northern Ontario. We have to take the responsibility not only with respect to the law itself but in funding the minority so they can have the full rights guaranteed by the law.

Another issue brought up by my colleagues the member for Ottawa East and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is one I fully concur in. That is the definition of an elector in Ontario. I happen to agree that citizenship should be the main criterion. We have made citizenship more accessible, and you do not have to wait very long. I really do not consider three years to be a very long waiting period in any case, and I think the whole idea of being a British subject or of having British citizenship of any sort is a question of the old imperial concept of the citizenry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That particular subject is not germane to this bill.

Mr. Samis: No, but it has been brought up by at least two if not three previous speakers, and I think in the overall context of defining --

The Acting Speaker: It comes under the Election Act, so I would ask you to stick to Bill 150.

Mr. Samis: Okay. Dealing with the very first section of the bill, which defines "electors," I think it is important to say that we want Canadian citizens participating in this. That would be the simple requirement to achieve maximum participation.

Beyond that, my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has outlined our party's position on the other components of the bill. I welcome the progress represented in section 7, but I do not think it is strong enough. And I emphasize again that I do not consider the use of French at the municipal level to be a privilege; in Ontario, I think it is a right.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I introduced this bill a week or so ago, I will be asking that the bill go to committee of the whole House because I wish to move a technical amendment, which I have already given to the officers and critics.

Having said that, first, I would like to deal with the point made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who objects to the form of this bill.

As members can see, there are some 40-odd clauses in the bill, and I think it would be somewhat foolish to try to make 40 separate bills out of it. I know the member for Oshawa does not have that in mind, because many of them are technical and many of the clauses get around anachronistic provisions.

The system we have used for both this bill, the Municipal Act amendments we bring in, and the regional bills, has worked well. And remember, this all amends one act of the Legislature. I can understand to a point the problem the member for Oshawa might have if there were a clause in the bill to which they were violently objecting and on which they wished a separate vote.

We have tried with these composite bills to put things that might be very controversial into separate bills. The point is that it is in our system that these bills do go to committee of the whole House. If members from any party wish to object to a clause, they have the right to refer the matter to committee to debate that section separately and to register in committee of the whole their objection to it by voting against the clause or by moving an amendment to delete the clause. The system has worked well. I do not think it has been abused by the government or by members of the opposition. While it certainly is not perfect, I think the alternative, to have a number of separate bills introduced, is unnecessary in the context of this House.

The member for Oshawa also raised a problem about section 5 of the bill, which repeals subsection 81(5) of the act, referring to payment to councillors. It makes it illegal for councillors to accept payment. I would point out that the reference in the compendium is not to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that is before the House; it is a reference to the 1972 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. In effect this provision has been unnecessary for the past 10 years, and that is why we are now bringing it forward.

I do not specifically want to get into the definition of "electors," although "electors" is mentioned in the bill, and, therefore, with respect, technically it is in order. I am sorry the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is no longer here. He challenged me and said he would bet me there could be a court challenge to elections, because British subjects are on the election rolls. Certainly we cannot change it at this stage. He pointed out that, under the equal rights provision, there could be a court challenge to municipal election lists and, therefore, to municipal elections.

I would point out to the member for Ottawa East -- if he was within range and I certainly hope someone in his party will point it out to him -- that section of the Charter of Rights does not take effect until some time in 1984 or 1985. It is not in effect at the moment. Therefore, a court challenge based on the equal rights' provision would not stand up for this municipal election.

Mr. Nixon: I will pass that on to him.

Mr. Rotenberg: On that point, I should point out that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is now examining the statutory provisions of many of our acts and much of the legislation of this province. This is one of the things he is examining and certainly there will be a report from the Attorney General. If necessary, there will be a change before that provision of the Charter of Rights comes into force and before the next election. That is only speaking from the technical legal point of view, because it is really not part of the bill at this stage. I do not want to comment on the philosophy of who should be an elector within this province.

The bulk of the discussion on this bill in second reading has been on section 7, the English-French section. I would like to thank the members of the House for their support of the section, although in some cases the support has not been total.

Part of the continuing policy of this government is to bring in English and French, bilingualism, where it is required, and it is considered necessary and desirable. The government can be proud of its record, going back many years to Premier Robarts and his Confederation of Tomorrow Conference back in 1967, and the feeling, the actions and the policy of this government, to have dialogue with our sister province, Quebec, and with the francophones in this province and to bring into this province a recognition of the rights of francophones. The recognition in this bill of that right of francophones is not, as some would desire, to make bilingualism mandatory in this province, but, in this case, in municipal legislation to make all the provisions of the act somewhat permissive.

Mention was made by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) last time about the cost of simultaneous translation and other translations. I would like to refer members to the pamphlet put out by our ministry in April, entitled, Municipal Services in French/Services, municipaux offerts en français. It is bilingual on both sides of it. I think the simplest thing for me to do is to read part of this pamphlet, which I believe has gone out to all municipalities. I would ask my staff member who is present to send it to those members who have spoken today, for their information.

This pamphlet is put out by our Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing:

"The ministry offers a program of financial assistance to municipalities in Ontario for providing municipal services in French as well as in English.

"This program is intended to support and encourage the provision of municipal services in French in those areas of the province of Ontario where such services are deemed to be necessary.

"Recognizing that the responsibility for providing municipal services in French rests with the municipality, and that the degree to which such services are provided is solely within the discretion of the council, assistance under the program is offered for a period of five consecutive years and is intended to offset part of the costs of providing new or improved French-language services during the initial years, when costs to the municipality are likely to be highest.

4:50 p.m.

"This pamphlet is designed to inform Ontario municipalities of the assistance available under the program and the kind of activities that are eligible for assistance.

"Municipalities are eligible to receive:

"(a) Reimbursement of 50 per cent of actual municipal costs, up to a maximum of $50,000 each year per municipality, for a period of five consecutive years. This assistance is intended to cover the following, or similar, types of activities:

"Language instruction in either English or French as a second language for members of the municipal councils and staff of the municipalities;

"Translation of documents by municipal staff and/or commercial translators from English into French and from French into English" -- which would cover part of the objection that some members have indicated to subsection 7(7) --

"Printing costs associated with the production of municipal bilingual documents in French and English and municipal documents that have been translated from English into French or from French into English;

"Acquisition by lease or rental of simultaneous- interpretation services for council and/or special public meetings."

Now, to answer the specific point of the member from Waterloo North (Mr. Epp):

"(b) A one-time special grant of up to 70 per cent of the cost of purchasing simultaneous- interpretation equipment; and

"(c) A further one-time special grant to cover consulting fees incurred for developing a French- language-services program for a municipality, such payment not to exceed $125 per day, plus expenses, up to a maximum of 15 working days."

I would point out to this House that in the estimates of the ministry for this fiscal year the sum of $450,000 is provided to cover the first year's costs. If there are a lot of requests, certainly that can be increased.

I would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is available to municipalities as assistance by the government, and particularly by our ministry, to those who want to implement a bilingual program.

Much has been said about the possible requirement of a municipality to have to translate into English a document that is totally in French. This was put in, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, as something that is not mandatory by the government but is something that is permissive. The type of thing we have in mind is where a municipality may submit a document such as an official plan, or a complicated document which has to be circulated, and when a municipality requests or requires some reasonably quick approval; an official plan would require that.

To answer the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), in the case of a simple letter there is no problem in any ministry to translate it, but if it is a major, complicated document and our translation services cannot handle it and approval is required, we have it in the legislation to say to the municipality, in effect, "If you want this approved, you have to look after the translation." But we have also said that we will assist in the cost of that translation up to 50 per cent.

The member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) have also discussed the problem that arises if a council passes a bylaw that says, "English only in our council." They feel that it should be a right of each member of the council to speak French if they so desire.

I would point out that this legislation is quite even-handed. Under this legislation a municipal council could pass a bylaw saying, "We speak French only here," and they could prohibit a councillor from speaking English in a council if they so desire.

On the speaking part of it, while speaking in a council or before a council it is permissive to a council to have English only, French only or English and French as their official languages. I say it is permissive to a municipal council because we feel, in this ministry and this government, that these are matters to be decided by the local council which understands the local situation best. We feel it should be left up to the good sense of the local council to decide what official language they could have. I would be very surprised if, in any council, despite whatever their bylaws were, they would refuse a person who was not bilingual to address them.

Just a few moments ago, the member for Ottawa Centre addressed this House for a few minutes in Italian which, of course, is not permitted in this Legislature, although French is. Of course, no one called him to order because the good sense of this House would allow any member to speak briefly in any other language. It has happened before and I do not think we would have any problem with it.

The member for Ottawa Centre raised the matter of the referendum. This, of course, is not part of the bill and I will not comment on it. He has mentioned, as I indicated earlier, some matters under the Education Act which are certainly not part of the bill, and again I will not comment on that.

I would indicate that as regards section 7 of this bill, which has taken the time of the Legislature, it may not be perfect in the eyes of some members, but in my opinion it certainly goes a long way to accommodate the needs, the desires and, yes, the rights of both anglophones and francophones in this province, and it is another step in the implementation of this government's policy to so do on a permissive and not a mandatory basis.

With those remarks, I believe I have covered the points that have been raised by the members of the opposition. I ask for second reading of this bill and for it to go to committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

The Deputy Chairman: There are some amendments. Should we proceed to section 10? Which section do you want to begin on?

Mr. Cassidy: Subsection 7(3), Mr. Chairman.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am just drafting an amendment here. Since it would be desirable to have the amendment in writing, perhaps we could stand down subsection 7(3) and go on to the remainder. I will have an amendment on that particular point done by the time we get to that.

The Deputy Chairman: With the consent of the House, is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: I also have comments on subsection 7(7); if we can get to that next, I can comment on that.

The Deputy Chairman: Which subsection is it you will have your amendment prepared on?

Mr. Cassidy: Subsection 7(3)

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we stand down section 7 in its entirety, finish the bill and then come back to section 7.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that would be the best approach. Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"10(1) Subsection 143a(1) of the said act, as enacted by section 6 of the Statutes of Ontario 1982, chapter 24, is amended by striking out 'which bylaw shall not require the assent of the electors' in the third and fourth lines.

"(2) Subsection 143a(13) of the said Act be amended by striking out 'the assent of the electors and' in the second line."

He further moves that sections 10 to 41 of the bill as printed be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this bill was introduced on June 17, before Bill 12, which amended the Municipal Act, was finalized by the Legislature.

Because Bill 12 now has been enacted with a reference to the extendible debentures, these words in section 143 are no longer required since they are covered in the act which we passed since this bill was first introduced.

Section 10, as amended and renumbered, agreed to.

Sections 11 to 41, as renumbered, agreed to.

5 p.m.

On section 7:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House, I wonder whether I could comment first on subsection 7(7) and then come back to subsection 7(3). I have a legislative page making a copy of my proposed amendment,

The Deputy Chairman: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I can address my comments to the minister. I speak in reason rather than in passion right now. As I read subsection 7, it is quite clear that while this may have been directed to the need of a municipality to get a document or an official plan approved quickly and have it circulated within a limited amount of time, it might be applied to almost any document that came from a municipality, including even something as simple as a letter to the minister.

Am I correct in that impression? If I am correct in that impression, are the parliamentary assistant and the minister prepared to change that? Is it their view that because it is the ministry's practice to accept letters and other documents in French or English, these municipalities are going to have to depend on the goodwill of the government in power?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Ottawa Centre has interpreted it correctly. This government's record in accepting French documents is quite acceptable to all the communities in the province.

With respect, a letter could be a letter but it could also be 40 or 50 pages long without being deemed to be a letter. It is a matter which was left permissive by this government and I think the record of the government speaks for itself. We have never demanded an English translation. We have provided service to those who write to us in French. This is sort of a saving clause in case something does come up at some time which would require for some reason any municipality to send us an English translation because it was required.

I think I can assure the member and the House that this is something we would use very rarely, if ever.

Mr. Cassidy: If it is true that this is a saving clause and will be used very rarely, if ever, and given the fact it is offensive to anyone who is concerned, as I am and my party are, about Franco-Ontarian rights, why on earth would they keep it in the bill?

Why could the government simply not say that for the one or two times in half a decade when there might be something coming up that was a bit complicated to translate, that it is not worth leaving this in the bill where it could serve as a provocation or suggest to people the government was less than wholly willing in terms of recognition of the rights of Franco-Ontarians in municipalities to communicate with the government?

If I could pursue that for a minute. The minister's example was the case of an official plan coming to Queen's Park that needed to be circulated when there was some urgency about the matter. Now, there is seldom any urgency in dealing with official plans, but it seems to me that the municipality would recognize if they were in a hurry that it would take a bit longer to deal with their complicated document if it happened to be solely in French. The municipality might be relatively small and might not have the resources to do the translation. Who knows?

It seems to me to be bad law. I would ask the parliamentary assistant, given that he acknowledges that it is not the government's intention to use it, why do they not simply take it out. If, after five or six years, they find they are being deluged with huge, fat documents in French or in Croatian or whatever, and they have some problems, then let us discuss it then. Why not start with legislation as generous as he says the policy of the government actually is?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I did not say the government would never use it. I said it would be unlikely that the government would use it. The legislation is here. I have not introduced an amendment and I do not intend to introduce an amendment,

Mr. Cassidy: We are going to oppose this particular section. Just to conclude, and let us be very explicit: The minister has acknowledged that even a one-page letter in French from a municipality could be sent back by the government to that municipality. They could be told to kindly turn it into English before it will be considered. That is what we are voting on and the minister says the government still wants to keep that as a saving power. We say no, we will oppose the subsection.

Let us divide it, Mr. Chairman, so we can vote on that point before we get to the amended section.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the member want to vote on subsection 7(7) first and then proceed to the others?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, please.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of subsection 7(7) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Subsection 7(7) agreed to,

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Cassidy, have you circulated copies of your amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I am just going to circulate them now, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, that subsection 7(3) be amended by adding the words, "that the use of French and/or of English at meetings of council or council committees shall be in order at all times."

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I meant to say "French or English." My writing is a bit unclear.

The Deputy Chairman: Did you mean to say the use of French or English"?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The drafting may be a bit inelegant but the purpose is clear. It is simply to ensure the law indicates a council could not by bylaw prevent a member of council or someone making representations to council from using either of Canada's official languages. I think the points have been made in the course of the debate.

Je souhaite que le ministre, le secrétaire parlementaire soient prêts à accepter cet amendement qui assurera le droit de communiquer en français ou en anglais avec les membres d'un conseil municipal. Malheureusement, la législation telle qu'elle est proposée ne donne pas ce droit, parce qu'elle permet en fait à un conseil de passer un règlement qui défendra l'utilisation du français.

The minister says it could prevent the use of English. While that is true, it is extremely unlikely. I suggest this would be a much more acceptable means because I think it would be just as bad for a council to say no one could communicate in English as it would be if it said, "'No one can communicate with us or communicate as a member in this council in French."

I hope the minister's assistant is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: As everyone knows, rule 19(a) of our standing orders reads, "Every member desiring to speak must rise in his place and address himself to the Speaker, in either English or French."

As that is the government policy for this Legislature, we feel that either English or French can and should be used at the discretion of any member of this Legislature. That is a rule that we have adopted for our Legislature.

We feel this is something that is available to every municipal council. We also feel there should be a local option. This is permissive legislation and every council can adopt that kind of a bylaw if it so desires, but we do not feel we should be forcing that on any council. It can have English, it can have French or it can have both, and that is a matter of local option. We leave that to the good sense of every municipal council. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I would point out to the parliamentary assistant that the government has not taken that position in respect to what it calls local option in many other areas that affect the use of French and English. For example, while the law is equivocal with respect to having a French secondary school, it is certainly not equivocal with respect to the right to have one's children educated in French where there are more than 20 children, I think it is, or a certain number, whose parents express the desire that they be educated in French. The school board then has to provide them by right with schooling in French in a particular class.

That is part of the law of Ontario, and local option has not been permitted in that particular case, because it was felt that there are some purposes the province has to implement by means of legislation.

5:10 p.m.

Because of the fact that we set the framework for municipal governments in the Municipal Act, and because the municipalities are creatures of the province, it seems to me that if the government really accepts and believes that the rights of Franco-Ontarians and the right to equality for French and English are a priority and are important in this province -- and that has been said many times by Premier Robarts and by representatives of the present government over the course of the last 10 years -- then he should put his legislation where his mouth is by either accepting this amendment with respect to the right to use French in municipal councils or else by proposing some alternative amendment that will do the same thing.

If the parliamentary assistant wants to stand the bill down with only that one subsection left over in order that some better drafting or different drafting can be considered or in order that he can consult with his masters and see what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has to say about it, then we would certainly be happy to have it delayed in that way.

It seems to me that he should not panic because he was not given a mandate to act in this particular area. He should recognize that all of us in this province have a responsibility to try to ensure equality for the French and English languages. There are differences between our parties on this question, but I suggest that is not a matter of official bilingualism or anything like that; it is simply a matter of basic rights. Can someone speak French within a municipal council or not? Should it be purely permissive, or have we not reached the period in our history in this country and in this province where it should be a right?

We say it should be a right, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest that the minister should consider some alternative other than just simply blind resistance to anything because it happens to come from the New Democratic Party or because it happens to be desired by the French-speaking community of Ontario.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I endorse the suggestion that this item be stood down, because I think the parliamentary assistant may find that he is at variance with some of his colleagues on that side of the House. Rather than have him dig an even bigger trench for himself to try to extricate himself from in the near future, I think he should go along with standing the matter down so he will have a chance to speak to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his minister about this matter and come back and support the suggestion.

I do not think that taking a very isolated stance now, being very pig-headed about it and saying, "Look, I am not going to reconsider it, because I may change my mind by tomorrow" is a very democratic or particularly productive way to act in this Legislature. I think he would do his colleagues and, in fact, this Legislature a favour by standing this matter down and bringing it back at a later time so he will have the opportunity to consult with his colleagues on the matter, who I am sure support the suggestion and the amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I would indicate to the honourable members opposite that this discussion was anticipated and has been discussed by the government, and the government does not accept the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant is saying they anticipated it. In other words, this place is simply a farce and a joke. The people's representatives here on the three sides of the House, coming and presumably scrutinizing legislation and making suggestions, may as well just forget it; we may as well simply go home.

As far as the Franco-Ontarian community is concerned as well, I would say, "Well, that is it for democracy, because if your representatives make any attempt to speak on your behalf with respect to legislation and try to improve it, the government does not even bother to listen, because they have made up their minds in advance."

How closed can the parliamentary assistant be? How narrow-minded and how pig-headed is he being in this case by not even being prepared to listen to the debate? I think it is hypocritical for him to come in here and suggest that he is dealing with this parliament in any kind of democratic way. His mind was made up and as far as he is concerned, after the election was held in March 1981 we might as well all have drawn our salaries and come back in four years for the next election.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Is there any debate on the amendment before the House by the member for Ottawa Centre? Shall I read it again?

Mr. Cassidy moved that section 7(3) be amended by adding the words "that the use of French or of English at meetings of council or council committees shall be in order at all times."

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 7 agreed to.

Bill 150, as amended, reported.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I have filed amendments with the table and with my critics on sections 12, 18, 27, and 30. They are all basically the same, so I am prepared to speak on section 12 when we get there.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 62a(1) of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by striking out, "may," in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof, "has and shall be deemed always to have had the authority to."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, section 12 deals with the region of Niagara, section 18 with Ottawa-Carleton, section 27 with Waterloo, and section 30 with York. This amendment deals with the permissive legislation to allow regional councils to accept liquid waste from private operators. There is no problem with the section. This is something that has been requested by all of those municipalities.

The section gives permission, in this case to Niagara, to accept liquid waste from private operators. As I have indicated, some of the municipalities, anticipating this section, have accepted liquid waste from private operators before having the specific permission. In effect, what we are doing by saying, "has and shall be deemed always to have had the authority to" is to make this retroactive such that they are considered to have always had authority to accept liquid waste, in case there is some problem somewhere along the way.

We have not had any problems and there have not been any challenges, but at the request of the municipalities we are doing it this way to anticipate any possible challenge.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, from time to time the parliamentary assistant gets up and says these municipalities have requested it, and I have no reason to doubt they really have, but to support his statement, I wonder if he would be prepared to table the correspondence with respect to these requests? This affects the regions of Niagara, Ottawa-Carleton, Waterloo and York, and so I can presume he has correspondence which supports this request.

As far as the municipalities having this permission or having been granted the right to deal with this subject of waste is concerned, I see no problem with that, particularly if they have been doing it for the last number of months or even a few years, and providing, of course, that they meet all the environmental standards they have to meet.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem with the proposed amendment but I want to reiterate the request that was just made. When there are amendments proposed and the government is using the argument essentially that these are requests from municipalities, I would certainly appreciate seeing some indication of that in the compendium that is provided with these bills.

The easiest way would be simply to include the letter transmitting that request from the municipality to the government. If that were included in the compendium, it would resolve some of the difficulties we have on this side of the House in researching these bills. It is easy enough to say this is a request from the municipality, but I do not think it should be too strenuous to ask that it be included in the compendium so we could get something of the flavour of the nature of the request.

I do not think that would be an undue burden on the part of the government. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to take into consideration in future bills of this nature that we may have the opportunity to see the letters which requested the change in the act.

It strikes me that on a number of the proposals that are in this particular bill it would also be quite useful to have a little more background information than the one paragraph or so that is contained in the compendium we received on it.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, both opposition critics have asked that correspondence be tabled. I will indicate that I do not have the correspondence with me. If there is such correspondence I will be more than pleased to supply it.

However, I would point out that when these regional bills are drafted, meetings are held between our legal staff and the solicitors of the various regions. The request for this particular amendment from four regions may have been in writing or it may have been a verbal request. If it was in writing, I will be more than happy to supply it. If it was verbal, I will indicate that at some future date to the members who raised the point.

The point made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is well taken. If he feels the compendiums are not sufficient, I think it would be in order for us to supply the opposition critics, together with the compendium, the relative correspondence from regions in these particular cases.

I would also point out to the member for Oshawa and to other members opposite, as I have pointed out to them on many occasions privately, the compendium is a summary of what the ministry is recommending. I have offered to the critics, over the years, that the staff of the ministry is available to them without my being there. If there are any questions or there is any further background material they would require, they know that the ministry staff is available to them. I know from time to time the members of the opposition parties have taken advantage of that offer and have consulted with the members of our staff.

Having said that, I repeat that the point of the member for Oshawa is well taken. We will endeavour in the future to provide further information where we deem it desirable. The problem, of course, is one never knows if one is giving too much information. All members of this Legislature have an awful lot to read. We try to give it in summary form. We will try to give a little more but we do not want to give too much, because then members will complain that we do not summarize properly and that we give them too much to read. We will try to strike a proper balance in the future.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 47a(1) of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, as set out in section 18 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "has and shall be deemed always to have had the authority to."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the same amendment as we had a few moments ago. It is the same principle.

Motion agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to. Sections 19 and 20, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 21:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on this. I was not going to oppose the section but, as the parliamentary assistant knows, this is something which has dragged on for far too long with respect to the reform of the electoral system for the school board of the Ottawa Board of Education.

It happens to be in my community and I have spent too many hours of my life worrying about how to get a more representative and accountable school board in Ottawa. We have seen a grateful movement in the direction of reform. Even now, there will not be reform for another three years because of the foot-dragging which is taking place by the government.

I regret to say that a great deal of the responsibility lies in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who still seems to think that he is a controller of the city of Ottawa and that things in Ottawa should run according to what he thinks is a correct edict.

The present situation is this: Since 1972, the Ottawa Board of Education has been divided into two zones, each zone covering half of the city. The eastern half has bits of Rockcliffe and Vanier added in as well. Each of those zones elects six trustees; consequently there is an all-pervasive lack of accountability. The electors have extreme difficulty in understanding what is going on or in enforcing any accountability as far as their school board representatives are concerned. This is not for lack of trying to make changes. For almost 10 years now attempts have been made to get changes within the board of education. I have to say the incumbent trustees have not overwhelmed anyone with their desire to see those changes made.

Only at election times, it seems, has there been effective pressure, and then even after elections, because it is difficult to change the board with the existing system, we get the same old gang as before -- and they find it very cushy, thank you very much. Something somehow impedes them from really pressing to get a system that would be effective and close to the people.

It is ironic that this bill is going to pass third reading at about the time of the 1982 election day, next Monday, November 8. There are currently 17 candidates for six positions on the school board in the west ward and something like 18 or 19 candidates for six positions in the east ward. Faced with that and with a constituency of about 160,000 people, it is going to be difficult for candidates to reach the electors, particularly considering the fact that school board salaries are not high and there is not a lot of money available for campaigning.

On the other hand, it is almost impossible for the electors to get some idea of what the devil these people are all about. They wind up voting for the first six on the list and the alphabet triumphs; or they vote for the people they know, who tend to be the incumbents; or, in many cases, they do not vote at all. I am afraid that is what happens too often. They do not vote at all because they are simply fed up and cynical.

Attendance at the all-candidates meetings in Ottawa during this election campaign for the school board has been extremely limited. In fact, at times there appeared to be more people on the stage than in the audience. I think that is attributable to the fact that one cannot make any sensible, logical distinction or choice these days out of this number of people. Therefore, people simply turn off or they say, "I will look at the paper on the weekend before the election and I will pick them by the way their pictures look or on the basis of the 30- or 40-word summary of what they stand for."

My particular concern, and this is a matter of history, is that the request for legislation has come before the province -- in the first place, it should not have had to come here at all. In other cases, under the Education Act, redistricting is possible and there is no need to get special legislation. Unfortunately, the board of education is in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and it happens to be under that particular act. It was in April 1980, if not before, that the board requested legislation that would allow it to redistrict and to set up a four or six-ward system with two or three trustees per ward; in other words, a system that would bring the trustees significantly closer to the electorate.

When I, as the member for Ottawa Centre, started to trace that to try to find out what the devil was happening, I learned that letters both to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), the responsible ministers, had effectively been lost. The matter was languishing at the bottom of some civil servant's in-tray. Nothing had been done, and one suspects that instructions had been given that nothing was to be done until it was too late.

5:30 p.m.

Finally, in April or May 1980, just prior to when legislation was needed because of the anticipated or impending 1980 municipal elections, the government had a look and said, "In our wisdom, we do not think this request is an acceptable one." They sent it back. That meant the school board had to go back to this all over again. I suspect the minister may have been hoping one or two more of his friends would be elected to the school board and, therefore, there would be a majority for continued inaction.

That did not happen. The school board has been deeply divided on this question and the voting has been fairly close. I recognize that, but I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant one of the reasons for those deep divisions was the demonstrated fact a lot of incumbents liked the system because it helped them to keep on being re-elected.

It is not that long ago that the electoral list for the Ottawa school board used to have a little asterisk against the name of anyone who was an incumbent so that when one went to vote, if one did not know who to vote for, one could vote according to the asterisks and return the same old team as before. I was often tempted to vote against them precisely because they had asterisks against their names. Regardless of that, that certainly was an undue influence on electors. Those were the days when we had 50 candidates running for 12 positions.

It may be that the Minister of Education does not like the Ottawa Board of Education. She keeps on accusing it of overspending. As in her relations with the Toronto Board of Education, she does not understand the special educational needs that exist in a large urban area such as Ottawa.

Be all that as it may, what has happened since then is that, beginning in 1981, the board of education responsibly took up the cudgels again and took on this challenge. It did not give up because of the rather asinine behaviour of the government. It decided it would go through the hoops the way it had been asked to.

It held consultations, held meetings and met with the Ottawa Board of Trade which supports greater accountability for the board of education and supports having a ward system. It met with a number of different people from different walks of life. Is that really so unusual? No, it is not because it had done exactly the same thing before the previous request which was turned down.

Once again, when the public meetings were held, the various interest groups and people in general indicated they wanted to have redistricting so the school trustees would be closer to the people. This matter came up again in the spring of this year and I raised the matter again.

Lo and behold, what had happened? The letters had been lost once more. The minister had some policy analyst in some division of the ministry who was doing her best to make sure no stone would be left unturned and no consideration unconsidered to prolong the agony and the consideration of this matter.

Whether or not that was under instructions, I do not know. I do know a responsive and sensitive government would at least have said:

"You folks in Ottawa have had this turned back once. You have gone and done what we asked you to do. Now the least we can do for you is to put in a special bill and have it adopted before summer so that school board elections can be held on the basis of new districts on November 8, 1982."

The parliamentary assistant doubtless knows it was back in December or January of this year that the Ottawa Board of Education made its provisional decisions about what the districts should be. There was nothing objectionable about them. They followed the ward boundaries. I guess it would have provided for six wards of relatively equal population and would have followed the ward boundaries as well, as is required in this legislation. In other words, it was not a big deal, except that the ministry and the government decided to make it a big deal.

This Legislature is capable of moving extremely quickly once it has been alerted about a matter. Since there was co-operation from this side, and I presume from the Liberal side, it certainly would have been possible in May for the minister to have given orders to his parliamentary assistant or to the officials who were preparing the matter, saying: "I want that through. We want to act. It is reasonable that Ottawa as the second largest city in the province should have this. They have been waiting for an awful long time. Perhaps we have even been a bit negative but, since we sent it back once, let us get it through this time so they can have their election on the new basis."

Did that happen? No. I am glad you shook your head, Mr. Chairman. It indicates you are listening attentively. The minister said, "We are going to have to have it reviewed by the Ontario Municipal Board." That was some time in June. I contacted the OMB and asked them: "What is the situation? If the legislation is adopted even by the end of July, when it looks as if we are going rise, will it be possible for the OMB to consider this matter in time for the new legislation to be in place for the November 8 election?" I got assurances that this would probably be the case and that they would certainly pull out the stops to try to make that happen.

The minister has his hand over his forehead out of exhaustion, I guess. I am exhausted by all this, Mr. Chairman. It is something that affects people in my own area, and it affects people in the riding of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) and in the riding of the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett); it affects people in a portion of the riding of the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), and it affects people in the riding of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

It affects people right through the city of Ottawa; and I am tired of the fact that when Ottawa wants something, somehow Queen's Park is about 10,000 miles away rather than 265 miles away or a brief phone call or a one-hour plane flight away. That is all the time it takes the member for Ottawa East or the member for Ottawa West or me to go to Ottawa when we are going back to meet with people there or to do things in our ridings; but somehow, as far as the government is concerned, it takes eons rather than hours to get any action.

So there was not the kind of leadership that was required from the government. The consequence is that now we have a section that is acceptable -- I am not excited by it, but it is acceptable -- which will finally give the right to redistrict to the board of education when it deems that to be reasonable, provided there is OMB approval, but it will only give it to them for the 1985 elections.

Since the effort to get a better zone representation or ward representation, began back about 1975, I just think that in this fast-moving world 10 years is much too long a time for a simple, basic, straightforward reform like this to be approved, particularly when it is because of the inaction or the delays of the province.

With respect to the particular parts of it, I am not convinced that the municipal board had to be involved. That was the judgement of the province, and we are not opposing that particular section. At the very least this is workable. I hope the municipal board does not play silly games. I hope they will recognize, as the government seems to be unable to, that if the board of education makes a decision, the decision should be endorsed.

To give them their credit, I think the board of education in proposing ward boundaries or new districts was not being unreasonable. They were not trying to gerrymander or to get particular electoral advantage for anybody. There was some effort, albeit slow, to reflect the desires of the electors overwhelmingly in the city of Ottawa. I hope that if the municipal board is presented with that proposal after the current election, it will in fact view it in that order.

I would welcome subsection 21(3d) of the bill, which indicates that if the school board does not act, then it will be open to 150 electors to petition the municipal board to take action. This recognizes the difficulties that have existed and it recognizes that perhaps the incumbent trustees have shown that they love their offices a bit more than they love trying to make themselves accountable and truly representative.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment with some regrets over the delays it has taken. Frankly, I think that schooling and the accountability and the responsiveness to education in Ottawa have suffered as a consequence of the delays, many of which have emanated from the ministry and from the government.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should make a few comments on section 21; but before that I would say to the parliamentary assistant that I am extremely disappointed he did not see fit to accept some of the suggestions my colleagues and I and the member for Ottawa Centre made on how he could improve Bill 150. It is unfortunate that he did not accept what I consider to be very reasonable amendments to this legislation.

I do not want to be overly partisan; it is not my style, but unfortunately, section 21 of Bill 149 is typical of what one could consider to be Conservative legislation. In other words, it is too late and it does not deal with the real problem of education in Ottawa-Carleton. That should be emphasized.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, as an objective observer of the political situation, and of the whole situation in Ottawa-Carleton especially, you understand that it is very unfortunate, as the member for Ottawa Centre mentioned, that such important amendments to allow more accountability and more logic in the processes of electing trustees for the Ottawa Board of Education are not in place. We have been talking about this long enough. They should have been in place for the November 1982 elections. It is very unfortunate that this did not happen.

As my colleague has said, when it comes to voting, it borders on the ridiculous when you are electing trustees, at least in Ottawa-Carleton. I do not know what it is like in other areas, but frankly, if we are serious about having proper representation on such an important function as the school board, it seems somewhat ludicrous that we would have a situation where there are 30 or more candidates vying for 12 or so positions on the Ottawa Board of Education. There are two voting areas, east and west. If your name happens to be fairly high up in the alphabetical order, your chances of being elected are much better than somebody whose name happens to start with an R, as in my case. I would have difficulty being elected for the first time on the Ottawa Board of Education.

Mr. Chairman, if you had the good fortune to be a candidate in Ottawa-Carleton, you would have an excellent chance because your name starts with the letter it does. I just want to give you the idea that people should not be elected on the basis of letters. You can understand, for instance, that Roy is a name much more pleasant to the ear than Cureatz, and yet you would be elected before I would just because you would be higher up on the list. So you understand my frustration and my disappointment that we are dealing with this legislation now and that it will not be in force for November 1982 and will have to wait until 1985.

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant's name begins with R too.

Mr. Roy: He would never be elected on the board in Ottawa with a name like his, starting with an R; he would be just ahead of me, but his name is much too long and people would not go for it. They would prefer Roy.

More important, not only is it typical Tory legislation, in that it is too late to deal with the real problem existing now, but also it deals superficially with the real problems of education in Ottawa-Carleton. Put very simply, the problems of Ottawa-Carleton will be solved when this government acts, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) acts. I do not have to be kind to him on this particular legislation, because I think he is one of the people who has systematically opposed meaningful change for the system of education in Ottawa-Carleton. This Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Ottawa South, has systematically opposed changes.

The changes required do not require a genius to formulate. They were suggested as early or as late as in the Mayo report back in 1976, and prior to that time. The change that is required in Ottawa-Carleton is simply that there should exist in that area one public board for Ottawa- Carleton. We should not have a system where we have one public board for Ottawa and another public board for Carleton. There should exist one separate board for Ottawa-Carleton, and there should be one French-language board to deal with all the schools at all levels in Ottawa-Carleton. That would be the meaningful change that would be required, not playing around with trustees and so on.

Alors, Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout simplement dire que malheureusement, l'article 21 ne règle pas le problème fondamental de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. La meilleure solution qui devrait être présentée ici serait en fait d'établir un conseil scolaire public pour tout le secteur d'Ottawa-Carleton; il devrait y avoir également un conseil séparé pour ce même secteur, ainsi qu'un conseil homogène de langue française, tel que celui-ci a déjà été proposé et dont on parle depuis plus de dix ans. Malheureusement, Monsieur le Président, les solutions du gouvernement sont systématiquement plus ou moins adéquates. Le ministre de l'Education nous avait proposé en son temps un livre vert -- je crois que c'est comme cela qu'on l'appelait à l'époque. Un livre vert, Monsieur le Président, c'est un "Green Book". That was going to be the solution to all problems at that time.

Ce livre vert devait être une nouvelle solution à la représentation des francophones au sein du conseil de l'éducation d'Ottawa. Mais ce ne fut pas la solution. Un comité, formé en avril par le gouvernement, avait proposé de bonne foi une série de solutions. Ce comité avait l'impression -- comme nous tous, Monsieur le Président, car c'était une impression qui nous avait été donnée par le Premier ministre et le ministre de l'Education -- qu'on allait voir encore des changements fondamentaux en vigueur pour les élections de novembre 1982. Malheureusement, ce fut une autre déception et nous nous trouvons de nouveau dans une situation qui ne garantit pas la représentation efficace et adéquate des francophones. Le gouvernement a fait tous les efforts possibles pour éviter de créer un conseil homogène de langue française. Et je crois bien que le coupable dans tout cela est bien le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement de l'Ontario, le député d'Ottawa-Sud (M. Bennett).

C'est bien sûr la solution la plus logique. Ce n'est pas une question partisane, Monsieur le Président, mais une question proposée dans le rapport Mayo. Elle a été acceptée par tous les conseils scolaires, par tous les gouvernements municipaux, tous les journaux, tous les chefs, toutes les personnalités de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. Mais la seule personne qui refuse d'accepter ces revendications logiques, des revendications qui rendraient finalement justice aux francophones c'est toujours le gouvernement; et d'après moi, c'est le député d'Ottawa-Sud (M. Bennett) qui refuse d'accepter ces revendications. Nous ne voyons, Monsieur le Président, que de petits changements plus ou moins superficiels. Cela va aider un peu et permettre une meilleure représentation, sans doute, mais le problème fondamental qui existe dans la région n'est pas réglé.

Mr. Chairman, if I could summarize: It is very unfortunate that we have not seized this opportunity to deal with the fundamental problems that exist for education in Ottawa-Carleton. While we are getting changes that certainly will be helpful -- they will mean more accountability on the part of those trustees if the board decides to have trustees represent wards rather than a situation in which they are elected at large as they are now -- the fact remains that we are not dealing with the fundamental problem that exists in that area.

As a result, we are left with the illogical situation of decreasing enrolment in Ottawa and increasing enrolment in Carleton. Schools are being sbut down here and there and the boards cannot get together to deal with that problem. Meanwhile, francophones are in both the Ottawa and Carleton boards, at four different levels spread out all over the region. The representation and the accountability on behalf of that important linguistic group are not effective and do not deal with the real problem.

5:50 p.m.

It is with a certain amount of sadness that I must say that some of us have repeated this course for 10 years now in this place. Frankly, I cannot understand where the opposition originates, apart from some of the local members, led by the member for Ottawa South. I wish he were here to defend his legislation. It is not that I do not have great admiration for the parliamentary assistant, but I would heap scorn and abuse on the minister with far more aggressiveness than I would on the poor parliamentary assistant, who sits there with a smile that says: "What's going on? What's happening? I just came down here to put forward this bill. I don't want to suffer this abuse."

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is an intruder. This is an Ottawa affair.

Mr. Roy: It seems to me the minister should be here to tell us why the government has systematically refused to deal with the fundamental problems existing at the level of education in Ottawa-Carleton. Surely the people of that area deserve an explanation from the minister as to why he refuses to accept a proposal that has received such widespread approval in Ottawa-Carleton. Unfortunately, the consequences are such that we shall be dealing again in a superficial way with the fundamental problems, and the situation will continue to exist.

Not too long ago we read something in a press report in which the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) said something like, "Well, I am prepared to look at whether fusion or amalgamation of both boards is something that is acceptable." What is going to happen is that we are going to discuss it ad infinitum --

The Deputy Chairman: Dans un autre livre vert.

Mr. Roy: Yes, dans un autre livre vert. Vous avez raison, Monsieur. Your French is impeccable, Mr. Chairman; you should be told that.

Unfortunately, we are going to be left with a situation so that even by 1985 the problem will not have been dealt with and the fundamental problems in that area will continue.

Not only is it not just and not fair but also, in my opinion, it is a great waste of taxpayers' money. The more scorn and abuse that is heaped on this government, the more the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton will realize, at some point, how ill served they have been by the approach of the government on this issue.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons for the delay was that the request by the Ottawa-Carleton school board was not in the form in which we see it today. The request by that school board, even early this year, was that they be allowed to do their own redistribution and set their own boundaries without reference to anyone else, and certainly without reference to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has indicated that in his opinion that reference is not necessary. I point out to him and to the other members of this Legislature that all municipal entities, be they school boards or councils, which have the right to draw their own boundaries, also have the obligation to submit those boundaries to the Ontario Municipal Board if there is any objection within their municipality.

This is a principle which this government feels is important. I am really surprised that the former leader of the third party, which is always trying to protect the rights of minorities and which is always trying to indicate it wants to protect everyone's rights by making sure there are proper public hearings, would indicate in this case that his party feels the Ottawa-Carleton regional school board could set its boundaries and have an exemption to the principle which this government and this Legislature has adopted for everyone else.

Their original request also did not have what is now subsection 3d, which the member for Ottawa Centre supports; that provides that a petition of electors can request a hearing by the municipal board if the school board does not so do.

We feel the legislation in this form is what should be going forward. I am pleased to hear that, with reservations, the members opposite support this, because we feel any redistribution must have the possibility of a public hearing, and it must have the possibility, where the council or school board does not do it, for electors, if they feel they are hard done by, to be able to make a petition.

The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has raised other matters which are interesting but which, with respect, are not within the province of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; they are under the school board. I would suggest, if he wishes to pursue those matters, he should pursue them with the Minister of Education.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, part of the frustration the people of Ottawa have felt over this matter is that it was in April 1980, if not before, that the Ottawa Board of Education first made the specific and official request to the ministry with respect to the redistricting.

The Ministry of Education at least has an office in Ottawa. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing represents an Ottawa constituency. In other words, if the government wanted to insist that the OMB be involved in this matter, there were ample means by which it could have indicated that to the board of education. The government could have said two and a half years ago, "We are going to go ahead with this, or we think we will; so would you please have some means by which the municipal board can oversee what you are planning to do?"

There would be nothing extraordinary about that. I suspect the board of education at that point would have said, "If that is the way you want to have it, that is the way it should be." I do not want to bore anybody with all the legislation, but school boards such as the Windsor Board of Education and the Hamilton Board of Education for some time have had the right to go from an at-large system to a ward system without having to go before the Ontario Municipal Board or any other outside authority. Granted, they go to wards that are established for municipal purposes, but that is what the Ottawa Board of Education proposed to do as well. It thought it was acting in a reasonable way by making the initial request.

If it was so important to have the OMB involved, why the devil did the government or the ministry not go back to the Ottawa Board of Education two years ago and tell it at that time:

"Would you please include that in your request? That will expedite matters." Oh no, they did not work that way. It was not until we dug it out of the bottom filing cabinet of the nethermost office in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing some time in April that we finally discovered the minister or his assistants were concerned about whether the municipal board should be involved.

I am suggesting there is something negligent as far as the ministry is concerned in that it took so long to find this issue of principle which now has been used to delay the matter until 1985. Having discovered the matter in April or May, there was no reason it still could not have come before the Legislature in time. The application could have been made before the municipal board in the summer and it could have been put into force now.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could say, "How come this matter did not get expedited once you discovered it? Even in May or June it would still have been possible to have put the changes into place in time for the 1982 elections if the board acted with expedition." But why did the government not give them the chance?

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 21 carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, could the parliamentary assistant answer that question?

Mr. Chairman: Maybe he does not want to.

Mr. Cassidy: For the record right now, I would like to know why, when there was time to get this through for the 1982 elections, it was not done.

Mr. Chairman: I have a great idea. If he agrees to answer the question, that will bring us to part VII. Why don't we call it quits for two hours?

Mr. Cassidy: Is the parliamentary assistant going to respond? If not, we will record that he will not respond and pass the section.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, just before that, could I ask him a question?

Mr. Chairman: Sure. Why not?

Mr. Roy: Since the parliamentary assistant attempted, based on legalistics, to avoid my suggestions and interjections, will he tell us why his boss, the member for Ottawa South, has systematically opposed meaningful change as far as changes in restructuring the boards of education in Ottawa-Carleton are concerned? Why has he systematically opposed the establishment of a French-language school board? Let the parliamentary assistant put that on the record before the dinner hour.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the matters which the member for Ottawa East raises are not matters that are in this bill but are matters of education. I suggest to him, if he has questions of the member for Ottawa South, he should ask them at the proper time.

I say to the member for Ottawa Centre. this matter was on the agenda to be looked at in the spring. Because of pressures of many other pieces of legislation, it did not make it for the spring session. It has made it for the fall session.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.