Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. A rough count indicates there are only 10 members in the assembly; I would think that would be far below a quorum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved second reading of Bill 171, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this act complements some other legislation brought forward, I think by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). It amends the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act so that the corporation can issue debentures for school boards.

It is required to allow school boards to have access to low-interest debentures through the advantages provided by the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act’s low rates. It is also required because of the change in policy enunciated about a year ago, last budget by my predecessor, when he changed the method of financing capital works for school boards in the province.

Instead of having the school boards finance 100 per cent of their needs, with a complicated grant system whereby we paid them back not only the capital but the interest, we are now giving -- 75 per cent I believe it is -- up-front grants for those approved capital works and allowing the school board to decide whether or not it will borrow the difference by borrowing through the municipality it is in or going to the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation for its funds.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), I just want to say we will support this bill. Obviously, this particular act means the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation will have more control on the debentures of the school boards. It also means there is going to be a clearer understanding as to who is responsible for these matters.

I think the municipalities themselves will welcome this particular change; and as the Treasurer has indicated, having funds available at a lower interest rate means the public will save money, I guess, in the long run. This being essentially a housekeeping bill, we have no problem with it and obviously will support it.

Mr. Laughren: When I first looked at this bill I didn’t understand it; now that I have examined it for several weeks I am in the same position.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, and this is open for debate in itself, it now allows the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation to purchase debentures -- the Treasurer said “issue debentures,” and I am not sure he really meant that -- on debts of a school board.

I don’t know how word gets out on bills like this, but in the riding I represent, which is admittedly more sophisticated than many of the ridings other members represent, my phone has been ringing incessantly on this particular bill. People from Shining Tree have been calling me and asking me about the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act and wanting to know whether the change in this act will apply to local services boards, as is recognized under Bill 122 as brought forward by the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Perhaps the minister could answer some of those questions, because the people in Shining Tree are concerned about the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act and whether or not it is some kind of devious way in which bills will be shifted from the province to the good burghers of Shining Tree. I hope the Treasurer will allay my fears.

Of course Shining Tree is only one of many communities which I could give examples of. We understand and we are worried about the fact the Minister of Education has brought forth a number of bills which are not unrelated to this one.

We are worried there might be a subtle shift from the province assuming certain obligations concerning the cost of education in this province and putting --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’m not running away to Chapleau with you; you can’t even count.

Mr. Laughren: Come to Chapleau with me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It’s only one bill.

Mr. Laughren: The flying club there needs someone with your assets.

Mr. Foulds: You wouldn’t care to define those assets.

Mr. Laughren: Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

There is suspicion out there across Ontario that everything the Treasurer does has some kind of more subtle meaning than is evident in the wording of the legislation. I would just ask the Treasurer if he would assure us this bill is not some kind of attempt, devious or otherwise, to shift some of the obligation of educating Ontario’s people from the province to municipalities such as Shining Tree.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to you, in spite of the cynicism I get from the left of me here -- I was minding my own business in my office and one of the page boys came along and said “We are short of bodies in the Legislature. Come on up here to support the Treasurer in passing this legislation.” So I thought I should come up here, get it on the record and say something nice about the people to my left.

I have been looking at the Treasury critic of the NDP, and I just remark to him that he looks pretty good. In fact he looks more like a Treasurer than the Treasurer himself. I am surprised the Minister of Education didn’t take up the offer of just a second ago.

I just want to say to my colleague from Nickel Belt the people of Vanier have had the same response to this bill as the people from Shining Tree. The phone has been ringing off the hook over this legislation, yes; but I explained to him the Treasurer’s motive in bringing forward this legislation was honourable.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am a little worried. Yesterday they had to clear the Toronto Stock Exchange for some mysterious cause. I have been sitting here sniffing some of the stuff coming from the Clerk’s desk and I suspect the wind has been going that way and they have had a little too much glue fumes over on the far side.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. There are no untoward smells coming from the Clerk’s desk, I am sure of that. I resent this attack upon the servants of the Legislature when they cannot defend themselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is there any other honourable member wishing to speak to this bill?

[8:15]

Mr. Roy: I am not finished, Mr Speaker. You know from my previous experience in this chamber that usually I conclude somewhere close to the legislation. I just want to say to the minister, and to my colleague from Waterloo North of course --

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s where he’s at that counts.

Mr. Roy: No, no; we have so many members from that area we have to get the ridings straight.

Once my colleague from Waterloo North advised the Treasurer he was in support that was good enough for me, the support there was automatic. I just wanted to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that I received many calls; and that I am glad to see that the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation will finally be authorized to purchase debentures, that is important in Ontario.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The good burghers of Shining Tree certainly are good. I recall stopping in at McDonald’s and they were excellent.

Mr. Roy: Oh no, do you want the rest of us to walk out?

Mr. Foulds: You’re going to lose your quorum again Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: After you have been Treasurer you have got very little else to lose but your quorum.

Let me assure my colleague from Nickel Belt, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is deceptive. In fact for a change we have got rid of a double-entry bookkeeping system that truly was confusing. We put it on a much simpler basis so the real net debt of a municipality shows; it doesn’t appear on my books as an asset and on their books as a liability, making everything inflated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is approval of second reading of Bill 171. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Laughren: Never.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will say “aye”.

All those opposed will say “nay”.

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to

Ordered for third reading.

First Clerk Assistant: The 21st order, second reading of Bill 179, The Powers of Attorney Act, 1979; Hon. Mr. McMurtry.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; the minister is not with us at the moment. I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments to make sure he is here shortly.

Mrs. Campbell: Why isn’t he here now?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: He is on his way; the parliamentary assistant is on his way.

Mr. T. P. Reid: This is typical of the way they are running the province.

Mr. Laughren: This is not a point of order or privilege.

Mrs. Campbell: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Laughren: A point of order is to --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Campbell: Move we adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am waiting for someone to call the orders of the day.

Mr. Warner: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker: There does not appear to be anyone on the government side who is in charge of the government business. I would ask, sir, if they are not ready to proceed with an order of the day that the House be adjourned.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, move we adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be up to someone to move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Warner: I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A move to adjourn is always in order.

Mrs. Campbell: It is not debatable.

Mr. Warner: Do you want me to move it twice, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Would you allow the Speaker to rule on it rather than you?

On a point of order, I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments. We have had some delay in getting the member here. I am assured he is on his way.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is not our fault.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am not suggesting it is anybody’s fault.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s your fault.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: No; I don’t think it’s my fault either.

The member has come in, Mr. Speaker. I ask that we proceed with the 21st order.

Mrs. Campbell: There is a motion on the floor.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, we obviously have a desire to carry out the business of the House in an orderly way. I would remind every member present, and the Speaker that we previously dealt with a matter not listed on our order of business. We did so out of a spirit of co-operation. Having done that, we then moved to an order which is printed but for which there is no accountable minister. I submit it is a very unusual way for the government to ask us to conduct the business of this assembly.

Having said that, if we have now rounded up someone who can account for the legislation, as good or bad as it may be, I’m quite prepared to withdraw my motion and proceed with the orderly business of this House.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 179, The Powers of Attorney Act, 1979.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as indicated on November 15 when this bill was originally introduced for first reading, the former Powers of Attorney Act is being repealed and replaced by this act. I believe it will be more appropriate and of much more use to people who want to appoint a power of attorney, not only for carrying on business during the time when they have capacity to carry on that business but also to carry on when they no longer have the mental capacity to transact their own business. There are appropriate safeguards in the bill for the termination of the power of attorney should there be an abuse of the power of attorney by that attorney.

This bill is based on the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report on the powers of attorney. I believe it will be a useful and powerful document that can be used by many of our residents to avoid costly court proceedings when people, at a late date in their lives, have lost the capacity to conduct their own business affairs.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a welcome one, generally. I think most of us have wrestled with powers of attorney for quite some time and recognized the need for some change.

The one thing I would like to ask is this: as I read the bill, in those cases where there is a power of attorney now it does not fill the requirements under this legislation. I do not see, and if I have missed it I would like to be directed to it, a section which could prevent some of the chaos I see occurring with this interim kind of situation.

It’s the only comment I have. I welcome the bill, but I do know of powers of attorney which are outstanding where there has been no declaration or finding in the sense of this legislation. For instance, where a person has been named as an executrix in a will the power of attorney she has given to someone else is in effect, or has been, and yet she has been found not to be capable of acting as an executrix, for example on the basis of medical evidence. Where does that leave that kind of power of attorney at this point?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, this party supports the bill brought forward. In our opinion, it is needed legislation.

I might add that we appreciate not only the explanation which was given but also receiving a copy of the form. I just wanted to clarify -- if the parliamentary assistant could indicate -- whether or not the form which was provided will be an appendix to the bill. It’s normal, in most cases, to have this type of form as part of the regulations. We don’t normally get to see this as part of the legislation but, rather, it’s left to the will of those who determine what regulations there shall be. I’d like to ask the parliamentary assistant to clarify whether or not the simplified form which was provided will become part of the legislation which we pass here tonight?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire, unless my colleague wishes it, that the bill go into committee, but there are a couple of matters in the bill that are of concern to me. Perhaps if the parliamentary assistant could answer them in his remarks on second reading it may not be necessary to put the bill into committee.

I’m referring particularly to the form at the back of the bill. I’ll skip the typographical error that’s in there. The word “my” somewhere in the body of the bill should be “may.” What confuses me and worries me about this kind of form is the capitalization of the particular clause which may or may not be inserted, depending on whether you want the power of attorney to be enforced should you become incapacitated. It’s in capital letters. The provision in the bill is “may,” “a general power of attorney may be in form 1 . . .”

I don’t understand whether or not there is any significance in the capitalization. I don’t want somebody, somewhere, some time to raise the argument that the form of power of attorney can be in any other form, but the particular words have to be in capital letters. I think the document leaves a technical question which should not have to be asked.

I would specifically ask the parliamentary assistant, on second reading, to say why the capitalization is provided in the form. What is the necessity of having it capitalized? If somewhere, some time, somebody puts it in lower case rather than upper case, is it opening an argument that someone can say the power of attorney is no good? That’s the principal question I have.

The bill, of course, deals with some very technical matters which, in case law relating to powers of attorney, was the subject matter of the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report many years ago. I’m glad that even at this late date the mills of the gods have ground this out of the ministry and that we have it here before us just before the next decade starts.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would let me know whether or not that general form poses a problem, because I know that he is an acute, discerning, technical, legalistic member of the profession and I’d like his opinion on it. Otherwise, I would suggest the bill go into committee and we put the upper case language into lower case and make certain there is no confusion about it.

[8:30]

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the House for my late arrival. Unfortunately I was unable to get back to the Legislature as early as I anticipated.

In relation to this power of attorney, I would like to point out to the members -- and I didn’t do this in my opening statement -- that the form for power of attorney under form 1 is considerably freer of technical and legal jargon than the standard form lawyers use for power of attorney.

I must say that in reviewing this particular bill in the justice policy area, I was not satisfied with the first form brought forward because of my experience in my small law practice that people did not understand what all this technical jargon was about. I wanted to simplify the form; I wanted to make it as straightforward as possible. I think this form will be much more easily understood by the public.

In relation to the questions by the member for St. George relating to powers of attorney created prior to this act coming into force, they will continue in force under the old law, and therefore if a person wanted a power of attorney to extend to a situation where that person became incapacitated they would have to draw a new power of attorney.

I felt in my original involvement with this particular piece of legislation that form 1 was a part of the bill and I want to assure the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that form 1 is an important part of this piece of legislation because it will be the part used by the general public and I think it is appropriately placed as part of this act.

I am assured by legislative counsel it will not matter whether the lower and upper case contained in that form is included, either in lower case or in upper case, and I would refer the member to section 5 of the bill for that authority.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act.

Mr. Sterling: Under the present Architects Act, an architect is prohibited from working for a corporation. Unfortunately, this prejudices the rights of architects in Ontario to participate in offshore endeavours. Many foreign jurisdictions would rather deal with a corporation and actually stipulate that it will be necessary to when dealing with services that are provided by architects.

Therefore, this bill provides an amendment to the Architects Act to allow architects to work and provide architectural services for incorporated companies that have contracted for services outside of our jurisdiction.

Mrs. Campbell: I am very pleased this was adequately explained because I had some difficulty with this bill and with the explanation which was given to us.

I have nothing further to say on this bill.

Mr. Warner: This is a very interesting little bill. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can explain, but I take it what this bill does is protect the architect who is resident in Ontario and who may be responsible for shoddy workmanship outside the province from being sued. I take it that is the major effect of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: I am unhappy with the bill. I don’t know whether it has any immense consequences to the world in which we live but I am unhappy for a number of reasons. Is the parliamentary assistant prepared to give us the facts of the specific instance that led to this initiative on the part of the ministry to put this bill before us so we can understand what its implication are, rather than generalizing about jurisdictions wanting to deal with corporations out there? Who did the ministry bear it from, what was the reason, what was the representation that was made by the association of architects? What was its purpose and what will be done to protect the revenue of the province of Ontario from architects here taking on jobs abroad; doing all of the work here but funnelling the money into a corporation organized and incorporated abroad and defrauding the revenue here?

All of those questions make me wonder why the government is meeting the specific request made by the architects’ association disguised as a generalized piece of legislation. Either there was a specific request or the Ministry of the Attorney General had better start disbanding part of its staff. If all they have to do is think up this kind of amendment to the Architects Act they have too many lawyers over there, one or the other.

Will the member for Carleton-Grenville level with us and tell us precisely why this bill is in front of us? I can’t believe it simply came out of somebody’s head that this was an essential piece of legislation to be put before this House on the evening of December 4, 1979.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in looking at the legislation, I’ve had some difficulty understanding exactly what it means. My colleague the member for Riverdale suggested that, possibly the Ministry of the Attorney General has too many lawyers. That may be. I suspect one of the reasons we are getting this legislation is that the architects in the past have been too busy to worry about this legislation -- except in the last few years when they had nothing to do. Now there may not be too many lawyers but too many architects out there looking for them.

As my colleague has said, I thought we were going to get a comprehensive bill dealing with architects. I thought this was in the works. I think it’s not unreasonable for members of the Legislature to get some explanation from the parliamentary assistant why we are not getting the comprehensive legislation.

Second, let us get at exactly what is happening here with this legislation. The architects have apparently tolerated the situation for many, many years and now this legislation is brought forward. What is the motivation behind it?

I must admit I have always had some difficulty understanding the process of how, all at once, legislation ended up on the floor of the House correcting problems which apparently had been tolerated for many, many years and nobody seemed to d0 anything about. I suppose if there is an example of this, this is the legislation here. All at once we are getting legislation which apparently permits architects now to work for a corporation and the corporation apparently to be able to do work for the government or on a project situate outside Ontario.

I have some difficulty and I would appreciate some explanation.

Mr. Sterling: I must say I am a little amazed at the outrage expressed by the members opposite.

First of all, if we refer to section 10(3) of the bill we see it relates to projects situate outside of Ontario.

The other matter is if, as alleged by members opposite, it is a method of draining off income out of Ontario, if the shareholders or the owners of the company are Ontario residents, they have to report world income, no matter where the corporation might be. I cannot in all honesty follow the member for Riverdale’s argument on that end of it.

Often, in foreign jurisdictions, and in particular in the oil-rich countries, approaches are made to companies, consortiums in Ontario. They don’t want to contract as a normal owner with an architect and then have the architect work with the contractor to put up the building. They want to buy a package for the whole show. They want the building designed, built and they want to deal with one party and one corporation in that particular matter.

We will admit it’s the architects’ association that wants this bill.

Mr. Foulds: Why?

Mr. Sterling: They want the bill so they can participate in this business cheaply in the Middle East in these overall contracts. The Middle East countries are requesting that they deal with corporations.

In dealing with the federal government from time to time in the past, they have requested that in service contracts they deal with corporations rather than individuals. It doesn’t make any sense to me that anyone would want to deal with a corporation rather than an individual, but that’s sometimes what some governments want.

[8:45]

This bill basically puts architects on the same ground as architects from other jurisdictions who involve themselves in offshore business. I would have thought there would be wholesale support for that kind of an idea. Isn’t selling our technology in a foreign country desirable?

I’m sorry, I missed the point of the member opposite on that; I do not see how they can drain off income through this particular matter. Either the member for Riverdale doesn’t understand the Corporations Tax Act or I just can’t follow his argument; I think his suspicions are unfounded.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

STATUTES REVISION ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 181, An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Statutes.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, this bill basically gives the legislative counsel the right to put together all of the statutes that have been accumulated in the province. I thought it might be wise to outline the difference between this bill and its effect as compared with the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1970.

Basically, the largest change will surround the index of the statutes. In the past, the index has been an alphabetical listing of the subject matter within the statutes. The index under the new 1980 RSOs will be an alphabetical index of subject matter covering all areas of legislation, so in dealing with licences, we will deal with the Municipal Act, we will deal with the acts of the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding fishing licences, et cetera. It is hoped this will provide the public with a better access to the law relating to the Ontario Legislature.

That is probably the main thrust of the difference in this particular Revised Statutes of Ontario. Most members are aware this procedure has gone on in the past. It was done in 1970, 1960, 1950, 1937 and 1927 and going back, with revisions about every 10 or 15 years.

There has also been a request in relation to statutes which are not included in the RSOs. Many people, and in particular the legal profession, have been concerned about acts which are not included in the RSOs. In the 1980 RSOs there will be included a list or schedule of all of the statutes which are not included in the 1980 RSOs. These generally are statutes which have dropped out of use and are of interest only to a small portion of the province.

The only other part that will change is that short titles will no longer include the word “the.” The Abandoned Orchards Act will become -- I don’t know how to say it without using it now -- Abandoned Orchards Act. This is put in because when people are quoting the act they automatically use the article in front of the title. It looks rather ridiculous when you’re writing “the The Abandoned Orchards Act.”

The revised statutes and revised regulations will cost approximately $2 million to produce. In the past, this has been recovered from sales from the Queen’s Printers.

Mrs. Campbell: I recognize this is, for the most part, simply a matter which we go through, or this House goes through, about every 10 years, even though I recognize some changes in this piece of legislation. One of the things that really does bother me is why at this time we should not have built into an act of this nature some provision whereby we can repeal some of those bills which are obsolete.

I was very pleased to be present when Mr. Stone was explaining to us the matter of the Railway Act and the importance which he felt it had historically, but I wonder how many other statutes there are which are not repealed and which are still of some effect on our lives. Why wouldn’t it be useful, when we do a 10-year review or revision, to provide some mechanism whereby these statutes could be referred to the appropriate ministry -- if we can find the appropriate ministry, with some of these elderly numbers -- so that we could get over some of the problems of having legislation which is not included in the Revised Statutes of Ontario but which is still in effect?

I recognize that this gives us authority to reintroduce them, but why wouldn’t it be a good time to try to get rid of those pieces of legislation? Goodness knows, there must still be a good many of them in effect that nobody really knows anything about, acts which are too obsolete to be usefully brought forward or even referred to. Why don’t we take this opportunity to have some procedure built in so we can repeal those bills which are no longer of use to us?

Mr. Warner: I certainly understand, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you do, after having gone through several bills both before the supper hour and afterwards, why the Attorney General isn’t here. He is embarrassed by the legislation which we have had in front of us; poorly drafted and unexplained. As the parliamentary assistant probably knows by now, it was not originally our intention to put each of the items into committee, but because of the numerous unanswered questions they have to go into committee stage. It is unfortunate, but it is very poor legislation that has been placed in front of us today.

On this one, I have a few questions. I would like to know, for example, if it is the intention of the government through the revision of the statutes to place the material to which the parliamentary assistant referred into the computer system so there will be computer access to the statutes for the members of the assembly, for the lawyers through the Law Society of Upper Canada, and for anyone else who might wish to see it; for example, would the computer access be available to the Metropolitan Toronto library or to anyone else, the University of Toronto or others? It seems to me that if you are going to bring the legislation into the 20th century, as you seem to be attempting to do through this bill, it would make sense to computerize it so that people who are interested can retrieve the information very quickly and thoroughly.

I might also mention, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will have an interest in this, that section 1 of the bill makes mention of a person who is well known to members of the assembly and who, in my opinion, is deserving of a great deal of praise. Mr. Arthur Norman Stone is mentioned in section 1 of the bill. I haven’t been around this assembly all that long, but he is probably one of the few people who has actually been named in legislation.

This gentleman, in my opinion, is worthy of our highest praise because he has served the members of this assembly in very good stead. It has been my experience, in the short while I have been in the assembly, that at any time I as a back-bencher have required information which would assist me in my work here, the legislative counsel, under the direction of the senior counsel, Mr. Stone, has served me extremely well and, as far as I know, he has served each member of the assembly extremely well in providing the kind of information and assistance which we require to do our job as well as we can. I am certainly pleased to see he is mentioned in person in the legislation. I think it is a tribute to the kind of quality that man has always exhibited.

Having made those few remarks, I indicate that this party will support the legislation and I look forward to the parliamentary assistant’s comments on the computer access.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comment of the previous speaker as far as he has directed his comments towards Mr. Arthur Stone and his colleague Mr. Fader.

Every 10 years we sort of look forward to the revised statutes coming along because the amendments which have been made over the last 10 years makes researching far, far more difficult. You are chasing all over in those red books trying to find out whether any statutes in the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1970 have been revised. Those of us who occasionally practise look forward to the revision that takes place every 10 years because obviously the matters are consolidated, they are put into order and it makes things far more easy for those involved with the law, whether they be lawyers or those involved in the research of the law.

[9:00]

I have to say, without wanting to be offensive at all to Mr. Stone or Mr. Fader, that it must be a considerable task to get all this material together, to index it. It sounds like something with which I would not personally like to get involved. However, as I said, those of us involved in a limited capacity with law look forward to the revised statutes for our use, but I would hate to be the one involved in preparing the Revised Statutes of Ontario. That sounds to me about as exciting as being parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General and having to go through this legislation over the last while talking about the enforcement of interprovincial subpoenas, Powers of Attorney Act, Architects Act and so on. It has not been the most exciting evening, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, I would like the parliamentary assistant to know I look forward to the 1980 amendments. I understand many of the statutes are being translated into French. I don’t know how far the translation has progressed, but I can think of one thing less exciting than preparing the revised statutes and that is translating them. That is not a job I would look forward to, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. However, that is going on.

I appreciate we are talking about a limited number, but it would be helpful if there were some way to indicate which revised statutes are available in both official languages. I understand that at present statutes in common use such as the Highway Traffic Act, the Residential Tenancies Act and other acts of a similar nature are being translated. But it would be helpful if we could have some idea which revised statutes are translated and which ones are in the process of translation. I suppose we will not know for 10 years after the revised statutes come out which ones are translated, except for the occasional press release coming from the Attorney General’s office.

These are some of the things that concern us. Another matter, and I think my colleague has discussed it, is the possibility of having the statutes indexed and computerized in order to provide more rapid access to the required information. Is anything being done in this direction?

Mr. Speaker, having said all this, I am boring myself. I will not bore you any longer.

Mr. Renwick: I just have a couple of matters. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant might look at some point at the Interpretation Act, which governs all the statutes; it is a fascinating piece of reading. We certainly never need to worry that amending the law changes the law. There is a specific provision in the Interpretation Act which says if we change the law we’re not to be thought to have changed it; it is considered to be the same as it was before it was amended. I never did understand that.

There are two provisions which particularly concern me. One is I don’t think any members of the assembly in this day and age think that when we pass a statute with a penalty clause imposing imprisonment we are thereby authorizing the imposition of imprisonment at hard labour. I would be inclined to think there isn’t a single member of the assembly who would have thought we were authorizing the imposition of hard labour. I would suggest that somebody, some time, look at section 24 of the Interpretation Act which states, “Where power to impose imprisonment is conferred by an act, it shall be deemed to authorize the imposing of imprisonment with hard labour.”

With the swing to the right of the Tory government, I think the citizens of the province are entitled to protection against the imposition of hard labour. With the member for London South (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) in charge of the whole operation around here, I would be inclined to think we should make certain that provision of the Interpretation Act is changed.

I notice we do pay deference, even in a very male-dominated assembly, to Her Majesty”. In the definition section, it is “Her Majesty, His Majesty, the Queen, the King, the crown” et cetera. But all the statutes are denoted in the masculine gender. I wonder whether for the next 10 years it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to reverse it and to provide that throughout all the statutes -- I’m sure the member for St. George would support me -- instead of “he” or “his,” it be “she” or “her.” That would mean that the provision of item (j) of section 27, which is headed “implied provision,” would have to be changed.

It presently reads, “Words importing the singular number or the masculine gender only, include more persons, parties or things of the same kind than one, and females as well as males in the converse.” Perhaps if the suggestion were accepted that “he” and “his” should he replaced by “she” and “hers,” we could reword that, for the next 10 years to say that, “Words importing the singular number of the feminine gender only include more persons, parties or things of the same kind than one, and males as well as females in the converse.”

With those two suggestions, each of which I think merits the attention of the government, I have no further comment on this bill. I’m not even going to ask that it be put into committee, provided the parliamentary assistant will give us his undertaking he will adopt the two matters to which I have referred.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I would like to indicate that in some ways this kind of legislation should not really flow from the Attorney General or from the government. In many ways it might be a bill which should be considered an expenditure from this legislative assembly itself. Truly, the publication of statutes does not really have a lot to do with the government. It’s a right of the people to receive the statutes as they might be.

As such, I’m quite easy with any suggestions that might be put forward. However, I do think that at the present time we have been charged with bringing these bills before the Legislature.

I would try to answer some of the concerns of the members opposite. First of all, the repeal of the old --

Mr. Speaker: They only reason why you have it is because either the Clerk or the presiding officer does not have the authority.

Mr. Sterling: We might be very willing to pass that over to you.

In relation to the repeal of the old section, I couldn’t agree more with the member for St. George’s comments. The only thing I can suggest -- because I quite frankly don’t think it can be done prior to the production of the statute -- is that that matter should probably be raised when the revised statutes for 1980 come out and then an attack should be made on the whole process of these older statutes. As I mentioned in my opening remarks there’s going to be a compendium, a list of those that are around but aren’t printed. Actually, the government of the day should be put on notice so they have to justify why these acts are still around.

In regard to the computer system, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the indexing of this particular statute as set out has been specifically designed to fit into a computer system. I’m informed by legislative counsel that they hope to be able to put this on a computer within a three-year period. Again, whether that is done earlier or later is up to the Legislative Assembly as a whole. There is also a considerable amount of work in that particular task.

I did find the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere’s remark a bit amusing. First of all, he attacked the drawing of this legislation and then, in the next breath, he paid tribute to our legislative counsel.

Mr. Warner: Not this legislative counsel.

Mr. Sterling: I affirm his remarks in terms of that. This bill has been drafted by that very legislative counsel.

In regard to the member for Ottawa East’s remarks, I wanted to indicate to him the Queen’s Printer actually produces a monthly checklist to indicate the statutes which have been translated and are available to the public. At the present time, 12 acts have been published. A further five acts have actually been translated and the translators are working on another three in that particular group. Those lists are produced on a monthly basis to inform the public.

The only problem I see with identifying which RSOs are available in English and in French might be more misleading than of help because it’s a continuing process. I only wish all of them were translated. If that were possible, we would certainly try to do that.

In regard to the gender in relation to all the statutes replacing “he” with “she” or “her” with “him,” or whatever, doesn’t really solve the problem. It only changes the problem around. I don’t know whether the member is being facetious in making the suggestion or not.

Mrs. Campbell: By all means, I’m serious.

Mr. Sterling: I think, too, the idea of producing statutes is to make the general public know what the law is. That’s the whole idea of this exercise. I don’t condone the usage but the public still uses the masculine. That’s the way it is. The change should occur in the public and not within the statute.

Mr. Warner: It’s called leadership.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.

Mr. Sterling: The idea is for the person out in the public, the average person in Ontario, to understand what he is reading. I am told by legislative counsel that the “she” doesn’t replace the “he” as a problem but if both “he” and “she” are included, then one confuses a lot of the problems included in the legislation. That is the position put forward by our experts.

[9:15]

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the parliamentary assistant as he talks about the male and the female, my understanding of the Privy Council judgement of some 50 years ago was that it determined at that stage that women were persons and that any remark concerning the male was pure obiter dictum. Could he help me?

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

REGULATIONS REVISION ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 182, An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Regulations.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks with regard to Bill 181 would be identical for this particular bill. In other words, the changes envisaged in that particular bill relating to the recording of statutes and indices, et cetera, also relate to the regulations. I would therefore limit my opening statement to the remarks I made in the prior bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do have some serious concerns about this bill. I recognize again that it is somewhat routine but I would like to know from the parliamentary assistant if we are ever going to reach a stage when we really look at the regulations which we put out in this assembly. Is there not some opportunity, as we are producing these documents, to really analyse the regulations, particularly the ones relating to the ComSoc area? I am sure there are many others which are discriminatory, which are, in my view, in opposition to natural justice.

We discussed this matter with Mr. Stone at the estimates committee, but he was in no position to be of assistance to us because basically, it is a policy matter. He did say that they did look at it from the point of view of natural justice. I wonder, with all the regulations we put forth, when we have a provision in bills which permits regulations to be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, if we are not giving to the government of the day the opportunity to bring in regulations which do not in very real terms carry out the principle of the bill in the ComSoc bills, the family benefit legislation and others, since it is the Attorney General who brings forward these bills, why he is not more concerned with the assurance that the regulations do reflect the actual purport of the bill, the heart of the bill and that the bill is not intended as a discriminatory act. The regulations appear so often to indicate that in passing the legislation we have in fact approved regulations which, for my part, do not carry out that purpose.

At what point, if not now, can we discuss the matter of continuing these odious, in many cases obnoxious, discriminatory regulations? Even the minister talks about them as an anomaly. If he goes that far, I am safe in going where I have gone tonight.

Would the parliamentary assistant please, in addressing the matter, give us some assurance from the Attorney General that he is prepared to look at these regulations from that point of view, from the human point of view?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary assistant realizes full well that much of the power, if not most of the power, of the government rests not in the legislation itself but in the regulations which are passed unimpeded by the Legislature.

As my colleague from St. George has mentioned, we know from Community and Social Services the kinds of problems that are presented to people because of regulations. Ontario Housing Corporation is another oppressive body that through its regulations causes a great many problems for people. Those regulations we can’t do anything about. This House can pass all the legislation it wants in trying to provide decent housing for people, but it can’t do anything about that little elite group over there on Bloor Street who control and who dictate how the housing shall be meted out to the people of Ontario.

As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, when the committee was dealing with changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act, we attempted to get the chief dictator for Ontario Housing before the committee. He refused to appear. He didn’t want to muddy the waters by coming before us because, in his own words, he really didn’t know very much about housing, his field was finance, so of what purpose would it be for him to come before us? We didn’t have any way of getting to him. We didn’t have any way for him to appear in front of us, short of getting a Speaker’s warrant, so we had to deal with the matter mostly in the abstract.

We had no way of obtaining for ourselves the exact rules under which the Ontario Housing Corporation determines how it will browbeat people. The regulations allow the government to hand out the patronage to those people they feel fit to run the various corporations, such as the Ontario Housing Corporation, who then in turn administer the show the way they want to.

Our problem is very frustrating. I look at the power section of this bill. It mentions that in the performance of their duties under this act the commissioners may omit any regulation that is obsolete. I can think of quite a few regulations which I determine to be obsolete. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant is ready to accept those suggestions from me as to which regulations are obsolete.

Mr. Sterling: That’s easy to answer.

Mr. Warner: If I draw up a list of obsolete regulations, is he prepared to ask the commissioners to omit them?

Mr. Sterling: Never.

Mr. Warner: No. What we are being asked to pass tonight is an extremely powerful piece of legislation. We are being asked to again grant to the government unlimited powers with respect to regulations. It is the regulations which govern this province, make no mistake about it.

It reminds me of the battle which I went through at the time of the increase in OHIP premiums. It was a tax; we knew it was a tax and the government knew it was a tax but we had given away our powers to control it. The government knew full well it could impose a tax on the people of Ontario with- out bringing it before the assembly. It was an insult to parliamentary democracy, in my view; an absolute insult.

We run through the same kind of argument with regulations. I don’t determine what regulations are; I don’t have any vote in that, but at least I have a vote in legislation. When legislation is brought before the assembly, I can go for or against. I have no such vote in regulations.

They sit closeted somewhere dreaming up all sorts of strange and weird regulations that oftentimes have nothing to do with the ordinary lives of citizens. When I think of the citizens in my riding who are so often beset upon by the Ontario Housing Corporation I could almost cry, because I have no control over those regulations. Who will bring Mr. Trusler under public control?

The Premier (Mr. Davis) sent a letter at one time saying he didn’t think a tenant should be on the Ontario Housing Corporation because the tenant would have a vested interest. The Premier of this province does not believe tenants should sit on the board of the Ontario Housing Corporation. When the Ontario Housing Corporation spokesmen were before the committee representing the absent chairman who refused to appear they mentioned that none of the directors were tenants of Ontario Housing. They felt they could still make all the decisions that were in the best interests of those people who require the assistance of public housing. Not one single director was a tenant in Ontario housing.

Can I affect the regulations that govern that? Not one iota.

We all understand it is necessary to update the Regulations Revision Act every 10 years and so tonight we will approve it. It is with a great deal of reluctance I do that because of the immense power which is placed in the hands of the government, because of the way in which it chooses to govern this province, not by legislation but by regulation, and because it knows full well it is totally incapable of bringing forward decent legislation -- I mean significant legislation. The government can give us the trifling bills which it has today and we will support them, but it is faced with a real challenge, such as trying to provide some legislative assistance to the handicapped people, and it fails and fails miserably.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is really going a little far afield.

[9:30]

Mr. Warner: It is possible that I have strayed from the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: We are talking about consolidation and revision -- nothing at all to do with legislation.

Mr. Warner: That’s right. You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do, that if the government manages to squeeze through that terrible piece of legislation, Bill 188, they will --

Mr. Speaker: My job is to see that you are relevant.

Mr. Warner: -- they will draft the regulations to which we will not agree. It is the regulations which govern our lives in this province, not the legislation. The parliamentary assistant understands that full well.

I suppose it is through the pressure of wanting an orderly way in which we will update the regulations in the province that we will support the passage of that bill. I assume that, like the statutes, we will make the regulations available to the computer system, but I want the parliamentary assistant to answer that question.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just have one question of the parliamentary assistant and again a reference to the Interpretation Act.

I don’t think very many members of the House who are interested in this whole vexed problem of regulations and their promulgation and the extent, as my colleague has said, that they govern the province are aware that we have an omnibus provision in the Interpretation Act which in my opinion should not be there. We have a provision in section 22 that “The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations for the due enforcement and carrying into effect of any act of the Legislature and where there is no provision in the act, may prescribe forms and may fix fees to be charged by all officers and persons by whom anything is required to be done.”

For practical purposes, we don’t need in each piece of legislation the enabling clause to permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pass regulations because the Interpretation Act has an all-encompassing section such as that. I think it is time we got away from this residual type of power in a statute as all-embracing as the Interpretation Act. We should repeal that section, so the power to make regulations is determined by the particular statute so there is no confusion about where the source of the authority is.

I have no idea of the extent to which that is used, but it would be very surprising to me if I were to find among the Ontario regulations published in the Gazette a regulation for which there was no authority in statute but which was passed under this general omnibus provision of section 22 of the Interpretation Act. That is my major comment.

My question simply is, is the intention of the government to publish an annual volume of the regulations, or are we again only going to take this first step -- have the revised regulations of Ontario 1980? Those who are interested in being able to have available to them the regulations for the next 10 years will then have to go through the laborious process of clipping them out of the back of the Ontario Gazette keeping them in some cumulative form and making up their own binders so they can find where the regulations are at the present time.

It would be a help if at least a limited number of annual volumes of the regulations were published. I don’t care what format they are in but they could be published as annual volumes so that at least in the major law libraries across the province and in this assembly, in the legislative library, we have available to us in a bound form, readily available at or near the end of each year the regulations which are passed, much in the same way as we have an annual volume of the statutes. I commend that suggestion to the parliamentary assistant and would appreciate hearing what consideration he has given to it.

Mr. Roy: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, a few comments about this Bill 182. I think Mr. Stone and Mr. Fader will understand there is nothing personal about the frustration expressed by at least one member of this Legislature about the process we are going through when we pass this type of legislation.

My colleague from St. George mentioned problems about regulation and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere mentioned certain problems about regulations. The thing that has always struck me, I suppose, ever since the days of first-year law school and subsequently after election to this place is that with the haphazard process we have following legislation through is at best questionable, but at least there is some review and the processes are there. Unfortunately, the process for regulations, which affect far more people and which one can do something about only when somebody runs into a problem with a particular regulation, is far more difficult. It is out there. You have these reams and volumes of regulations, and nobody looks at them.

I can recall being a junior member around this place and one of the great honours that is given to you is that you are named to the regulations committee. I can recall going to the first meeting of the regulations committee and being told at that point what our terms of reference were. I think one of the things we were told is that we had to verify if the regulations came within the act. No, I guess it was not our jurisdiction to verify whether the regulations were within the four corners of the act; it was the other way around.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s all you had to do.

Mr. Roy: That’s all we had to do. I said, “Are we going to get some experts? Are we going to have the act?” But, no, no, we had no experts to assist us. There were 10 or 12 people seated around there. I think I and possibly my colleague from Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) were the only ones with any legal experience on the committee. We were told we were going to be on the regulations committee and that we would be looking to see whether all these regulations coming forward were within the ambit or the jurisdiction of the enabling legislation, but without the benefit of experts or otherwise.

It was a real farce; it was a real charade. I said: “I am not sitting on this committee again. I am not going to go through this process.” I sat there once and never went back. That was in 1971. I understand the regulations committee no longer exists and that we don’t go through this any more.

Mrs. Campbell: We do have a committee that is supposed to look into it, statutory instruments.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but as I understand it there is no more revision of regulations now than there has ever been in the past, so what we are really faced with is a situation where there is no real scrutiny of regulations. The only time there is ever any challenge is when someone, I suppose, is affected by it. If he can afford a lawyer, then you might have someone challenging the regulation.

Having said that about the regulations, that we have no way to really check whether they are valid or not, whether under the enabling statute or the Interpretation Act, here we are having to pass a bill, Bill 182, which gives certain people powers to consolidate and revise these regulations. It just seems to me this is the height of frustration. Here we are in the Legislature giving power to do this with the regulations and for another 10 years we won’t know what is happening with the regulations. It is the height of frustration. I don’t know how I can best describe it to you, Mr. Speaker. My vocabulary is limited when I want to express my frustration about processes. It just seems to be circuitous. One just goes around in circles. I suspect that 50 years from now we will be doing the same thing.

Are there no other jurisdictions which deal with regulations? Is there not some way to get rid of some of these regulations? Is there not somewhere where there is some policing going on, where someone is scrutinizing these regulations? Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we have any serious thoughts about giving this type of power to revise and consolidate the regulations, we should go a step further and see that the regulations are within the jurisdiction of the statute or of the Interpretation Act.

I suppose it goes well with what has taken place this evening. My God it has been an evening of -- and I can see why the Attorney General is not here. That is the exciting part of the work of being parliamentary assistant. Meanwhile the Attorney General is either at the Albany Club or looking for another disaster or another headline.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say the debate has been far-reaching.I don’t know how much was going to the heart of the bill.

I would indicate it is the intent to bring regulations into the computer system.

I don’t think the remarks made in relation to the control over regulations were quite fair. It is not a one-sided view; I can understand the concern of the members opposite. It is not only difficult for them as members of the Legislature to keep control of the regulations passed, but I must admit as a back-bencher on the government side it is an equally difficult task to keep control of what regulations are passed.

Mrs. Campbell: Then let’s do something about it.

Mr. Sterling: I think we should perhaps do something about it. The problem is the answer. I don’t want to shove off the debate totally. The standing statutory instrument committee has reported before the House and perhaps that is the better forum to discuss this on a preliminary basis. Perhaps then it could be referred to the procedural affairs committee which, I believe, will be going up to Ottawa some time in the new y ear to look into other areas of their legislative process.

Mrs. Campbell: I thought the Morrow committee did that years ago. How long does it take?

Mr. Sterling: At any rate, in reference to the omnibus section of the Interpretation Act, section 22, brought forward by the member for Riverdale, I think it is important to note that omnibus regulation section only covers and I quote, “regulations for the due enforcement and carrying into effect of any act of the Legislature.” That particular section has not been used to any great extent.

The statutory instruments committee was specifically set up to try to control. They have their own counsel to look into the authority for making these regulations. Every member of this House -- perhaps it was done before he or she was here -- gave authority to the government to make regulations in certain areas. It was the wish of the Legislative Assembly to give the government that power.

[9:45]

If that is not the case, if the wish of this Legislative Assembly is to change that procedure then that should be done. I have difficulty trying to replace that system with something else. It is like a lot of things in law; they are not perfect, but maybe they are the best we can come up with. I don’t know.

Those are my closing remarks on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: There are no amendments on the Clerk’s table with regard to this but I see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has risen.

On section 1:

Mr. Warner: It is evident to all of us through the discussion which took place that the bill’s very loose language needs to be tightened up.

I am uneasy with the fact the government has decided to remove the minimum. The present legislation reads, “no fewer than five.” The government wishes to remove that minimum and it may be their intention eventually to scuttle the legislation. I believe the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act is an important one; I don’t like to think it will be scuttled.

I am very concerned that the government may be moving in that direction. I don’t know why. I read the same report the parliamentary assistant read, noting there had been an increase in the compensation paid out and the number of cases heard. The government appeared to be making noises in the direction of actually increasing both the number of people compensated and the dollar amounts awarded. That is why I am alarmed by the removal of the minimum and by what appears to be a potential scuttling of the legislation.

We also heard the parliamentary assistant mention there had been an increase of approximately 25 per cent in the amount, yet there wasn’t a coinciding increase in the number of people who would sit on the board. It makes sense to increase the number. I believe we should retain the minimum of five. I also believe we should increase the present maximum of seven. Perhaps we could start with what number the parliamentary assistant proposes to put in its place.

Mr. Sterling: Let me assure the member opposite that it is not the intention of this government to dismantle the board; that is the furthest thing from our minds.

As I indicated on the debate in second reading, we see a need to appoint five or six more at this time. The problem, as I mentioned to the Legislature at that time, is that it’s difficult to know the maximum number we might need in the future, in accordance with the growth of these types of claims and hearings. It doesn’t seem to have stabilized at this time. If the Legislature wishes to put a minimum on this, I don’t think I have any objection at all.

Mr. Warner: I’m encouraged by that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Warner moves that section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Subsection 1 of section 3 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971, being chapter 51, is amended by striking out seven in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘13.’”

Mr. Warner: If I could speak to that, what that does is retain the minimum of five, as is presently outlined in the act, and instead of seven it allows the number of 13. That means that the government can respond, as it has said it will, to the perceived need in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario.

I must also say I wrestled with the question of regionalizing. Since it is my understanding that we have no formal definition of regions in Ontario, it was very difficult to come up with a conceptualizing of the regions. All I can do is to try and deeply impress upon the government that it should make every effort to have the various regions of Ontario represented.

I would remind the parliamentary assistant that there is a difference between northeastern and northwestern Ontario. Each of those regions should be represented, as well as eastern Ontario and central and western Ontario, as they attempt to make up the composition.

The amendment allows that instead of seven, you can now add an additional -- up to 13 --

Mr. Rotenberg: How many is seven from 13? Do you know?

Mr. Warner: Do you want me to do that right off? Quick, like that?

Mr. Rotenberg: You couldn’t do it.

Mr. Warner: You give me the answer.

Mr. Rotenberg: You figure it out. I know it will take a little time. You can’t add, I know that, so we’ll give you time.

Mrs. Campbell: Really, you’re obnoxious.

Mr. Warner: I don’t know what caused the sudden outburst from the back row. It’s nice to see I have aroused the honourable member from slumber.

Mr. Rotenberg: You take seven from 13 and you didn’t know the answer.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment accomplishes all the principles the government outlined. What it does is put some guidelines on the very general and vague principles which were stated earlier by the parliamentary assistant.

Mrs. Campbell: I understand the purport of the amendment and I have great sympathy with it. I would like to understand, however, if it is not important that we also establish the chairmanship. Who is going to be presiding with these numbers? My understanding is that the chairman has been presiding in a great many of the cases which are of particular concern to me. I would like to understand what the honourable member would have to suggest with reference to the chairmanship, if they are going to 13 and assigning them, in essence, to the northeast and the northwest.

I have great sympathy with the amendment, but I would like clarification from somebody about who is going to guide the ship.

Mr. Warner: It’s always a great question as to who’s guiding the ship. In my amendment I was very strictly addressing the twofold problem, one, of not removing the minimum, as the government was doing; and two, of almost doubling the number of members which would be allowed.

I would assume that would still come under the chairmanship of the present chairman. If that poses a practical problem in terms of work load, I’m assuming that role can be delegated to other members. I don’t think there is anything in the present act that would preclude a permanent appointment of a person other than the present chairman to conduct the regular business of that committee. I could be wrong in that, but that’s my reading of the legislation.

What my amendment does is simply meet the interests, as expressed by the parliamentary assistant, of reaching out to the northern and eastern portions of Ontario.

As I mentioned, since we lack a regional definition in any of our legislation in Ontario, I could not put regions into the amendment, but I will have to trust that the government will have sufficient good sense to appoint people from northeastern, northwestern and eastern Ontario to serve part- time on this board hearing the cases put before it. I know that does not answer all of the questions posed by the member for St. George, but I hope I have answered sufficient of her queries to gain her support for the amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: The reason I raised it is because while we’re addressing the amendment to section 1 of the bill, there is a reference in section 3(1) of the act to the appointment of a chairman and one or more of those persons as vice-chairman.

When I expressed this before, my concern was that it seems we ought to be very sure that if a chairman is to he appointed out of these additional numbers for the northwest and northeast, that chairman would be someone who has some experience with the board because of the sophisticated quality of decisions in cases where children have been molested or abused. It was for that reason I raised the issue.

I don’t think the parliamentary assistant understood what I was saying. He mentioned something about new people. I am concerned that we do have the people in place in the north, the northeast and northwest, but that the quality should be the same across the province and that whoever became a vice-chairman in those areas, by example, would be experienced enough to be able to handle that kind of case or, in the alternative, that person would have a period of being in Toronto where so much of it takes place in order to understand the ramifications of the problem. That was what I was addressing myself to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the parliamentary assistant have any further comment?

Mr. Sterling: Although we perceive a need to appoint five or six new members, I wonder if the amendment is wise, because these board members are paid on a per-diem basis; I don’t know whether they will require eight, 14 or whatever, next year.

Mrs. Campbell: Then you come back to us and report.

[10:00]

Mr. Sterling: If that is a true desire, that’s fine and dandy. I was thinking that when we start to look at the areas, northeast, northwest and eastern Ontario, a board is comprised of two individuals from each. If the board chooses to -- and I think they should -- appoint two francophones, so they can hear cases in French, or French-speaking people, then I am already to eight in terms of regional representation plus that other special need. That is the only reason I complain about the number 13. It may be necessary, because of the increased case load in Toronto itself, to appoint two more here.

I would suggest an amendment. Instead of “such members as are,” as is now outlined in section 1 of the bill, place “such number of members, no fewer than five, as are.” I don’t know if that meets with the approval of the other members or not.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, at this point, I take it, we just have the one amendment in front of us.

I was operating, both on the basis of the information provided by the government and a certain generosity of spirit. I was told the number of claimants had increased by approximately 25 per cent. I inflated that number to almost double. Instead of seven, it was made 13.

If you have in mind that it should be some other number, that is fine. That is why I asked you first before I placed the amendment.

I tell you quite frankly, I am not prepared to live with the vagueness of simply removing the minimum and the maximum. I think there should be the protection that there will be no fewer than five people. If there is some perceived need you can identify in some way, such that you wish to increase the number from 13 to make it 15 or 17 or 85, then fine, come back and tell us that, but I prefer not to live with the vagueness which you have presented us with today.

That is why I have suggested, first, that we retain the five which was in the original legislation, and secondly, that we increase it from seven to 13, which is almost double. I think it is a reasonable amendment.

I fully appreciate -- and perhaps I appreciate a bit better now the member for St. George has spoken the second time -- exactly what she is saying. I would hope if this board was sitting in northern Ontario the chairman for that sitting would be someone from northern Ontario. If, for example, it were dealing with a matter which involved native people, I would hope there was a native person sitting on that board, or a francophone, particularly if they were in northeastern Ontario, whether it was Timmins or Hearst, or Kapuskasing.

I tell you as plainly as I am able to do, I want some definition. Since I fished around and could not get that definition from the government. I have placed an amendment which provides that definition. No fewer than five, no more than 13.

If the government wishes to amend that in some way, fine, do so, but for now, I think the amendment which I have placed is perfectly reasonable and workable and I see no reason to prolong the debate. You should simply accept it.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be unfair to the parliamentary assistant but does he have the information for us as to how the government, in its great wisdom, arrived at the number seven in the first place? What reason did they have -- if he knows, because he may not have been aware of it at the time?

Mr. Sterling: We are only advised by the board of their work load and of the problem of convening a panel. If it is the wish that 13 be the number, that is fine. The only thing is I don’t know whether that will provide enough flexibility when they expand their operations or try to represent all areas. I don’t know if you can predict that kind of thing, because those kinds of needs may crop up in the future. That is why we were trying to leave it open ended on the high end. But if there is no support for my suggestion, we will accept the other amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion in regard to this proposed amendment? If not, I will put the proposal.

All those in favour of Mr. Warner’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Warner: As I take it, Mr. Chairman, we are back to the status quo. We still do not have a minimum number.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I have placed the amendment and I was just going to place the section. Do you wish to still speak to the section?

Mr. Warner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have lost my amendment but I will continue the battle because I am fearful this government will scuttle a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the government made a great fuss a few years ago about the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, a good piece of legislation designed to assist people. Now they introduce an amendment which could, in effect, render that act meaningless if you do not have a board.

I have attempted to put some substance to it by making sure there will be a minimum number of people. The government does not know what a minimum should be and they don’t know what a maximum should be. I attempted to put the numbers five and 13 in place. The government doesn’t like that. What numbers would you suggest? If you don’t like five, tell me what number is the minimum. If you don’t like 13, tell me what number is the maximum. I will not be content until we get a minimum guarantee in this legislation and some idea as to what the maximum will be. I await the parliamentary assistant’s response.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, prior to the parliamentary assistant’s response, I wonder if we could at least have clarification. Did I understand correctly that the parliamentary assistant was prepared to accept the retention of the minimum of five? Was that his position? I think it’s important that we know that.

Mr. Sterling: Yes. It certainly is my intention to retain a minimum of five. I am quite willing to put an amendment to this section to the House to ensure that that is enshrined in the legislation.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I can’t accept the willingness to put an amendment. If we have an amendment I can put it, but if nobody puts it, then we can’t very well deal with it.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman can I do it verbally, or must I give it to you in writing?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It should be in writing, but I am sure the House will be glad to give you a moment or two to put it in writing.

Mrs. Campbell: Give him time to put it in writing.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out, “such members as are,” and in lieu thereof, such number of members, not fewer than five, as are.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, we are back to this half a loaf is better than none routine. We have the minimum number but the government has not satisfied my question about the maximum. They apparently have absolutely no idea how many people will be required.

I am pleased to see that there is the minimum guarantee. That is helpful and perhaps means that, contrary to the fears I expressed earlier, this act will not be scuttled. The maximum being unlimited brings back the suspicion I announced earlier and which was never answered as to how many people were going to be appointed and how much money they were going to get. How much of a little boondoggle is this going to be to those defeated Tories out there -- of which there are many?

The parliamentary assistant chose not to answer that earlier and I suppose he won’t answer it again, but that is one of the fears that I have -- not having any lid on this.

I am certainly pleased to see that we at least have the minimum in there. I support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 177, as amended, reported.

[10:15]

POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT

Consideration of Bill 179, the Powers of Attorney Act, 1979.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I did have an opportunity to have a brief word with the legislative counsel, who I think is trying to catch the parliamentary assistant’s eye, on what is obviously an important but extremely technical point. That is the upper case letters in the form in the specific clause in respect to which the act is being amended.

It seems quite clear to me that all we are doing is leaving the act open to misinterpretation, because the purpose of the act is to provide that a power of attorney may be granted which would extend into a period of time when the donor of the power was a person who had become legally incapable of acting. That is the major part of the bill. If we put in a form which has all of its words in that particular provision in upper case we have left it open that unless those words are in upper case, in whatever form is used, the power would not be effected.

I say it is a technical point. I happen to think it is a valid legal objection which could be raised against the form. All I want to do is to amend the bill to provide that wording or that lettering is dropped from upper ease to lower case. It surely shouldn’t be very difficult, but I’m anxious to do so.

If it can be accomplished, if the parliamentary assistant is prepared to accept that, there’s no problem. If not, then I will have to devise some way of moving that amendment, presumably by deleting it and reinserting it in lower ease.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I think the only reason it was put in upper ease is to draw attention to it when the form is read.

I have no objection and I believe this can be changed. I am instructed by legislative counsel it can be changed by my agreement to instruct them to change the capitals to lower case in future printings. I put it on the legislative record that I instruct them to do so.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are you hereby instructing them?

Mr. Sterling: That is what I am doing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does that satisfy the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: I take it when the bill comes out of the committee, before it is called for third reading it will be reprinted with that provision in lower case so the bill as passed by this assembly will have it in lower ease.

Mr. Sterling: That is the understanding.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Sterling: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t going to move this amendment unless this bill did go into committee because it is of such a minor nature.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that clause (b) of section 8 of the bill be amended by striking out “committee” in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “person having the powers of a committee.”

Mr. Sterling: The reason for this amendment is that under section 39 of the Mental Incompetency Act the appointment is of a person and not of a committee. It is a very technical legal point and I am advised by counsel this would be a clearer definition of what that section in the Mental Incompetency Act does.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 179, as amended, reported.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my concern is to understand the origin of the bill. I understand that it came from the Ontario Association of Architects. Again, I ask the parliamentary assistant, would he specify the exact nature of the operation which would require that a corporation be used to provide these architectural services outside Ontario? That is the first point

The second point is that he referred to a corporation being used for the purpose of providing services to the Middle East, which at this juncture in history causes me a little bit of concern.

The third point is should we not be changing “Ontario” to “Canada” in this bill, so we do not open the door for the provision of services within Canada by architects through the medium of a corporation?

It is that kind of thing I would like to discuss with the parliamentary assistant. Perhaps he would respond and I could see whether or not the answers lead to other questions.

Mr. Sterling: As I indicated before, evidently the type of contract some of the offshore countries desire is a contract which is all-inclusive; it includes all services. Under the present Architects Act an Ontario architect is forbidden to provide his services through that particular corporation.

As the architects are traditionally the owners’ agents in our building industry, they are interested in providing design and building services to offshore countries. Those offshore countries have expressed a desire to deal with a limited corporation, rather than individuals. That is their desire. That is the reason the architects have asked us to bring this piece of legislation forward.

We say a project “situate outside Ontario” because we really don’t have any jurisdiction to control the architectural profession outside of our province. I am not sure of all of the legislation in other provincial jurisdictions, but there may be other provincial jurisdictions that have incorporating legislation for their architectural professions.

Those are basically the answers I would give to the member at this time.

Mr. Renwick: We are being asked in section 1 of the bill to amend section 5 of the Architects Act by adding a new subsection to it. Section 5(2) of the Architects Act as now in force states “That no corporation shall be granted membership in the association or be licensed to practise architecture in Ontario.”

There are two prohibitions. “No corporation shall be granted membership in the association” -- that is the association of architects -- “or be licensed to practise architecture in Ontario.”

Subsection 3 states “Subsection 2 does not prevent a member of the association from offering or providing architectural services to a corporation in order to enable the corporation to provide architectural services in respect of a work or project situate outside Ontario.”

By that are we saying the corporation will be granted membership in the association? Presumably, no. Are we saying the corporation will be licensed to practise architecture in Ontario? I assume no. I say to myself, “Why do we need subsection 3?” because subsection 3 which we are being asked to introduce into the bill, “does not prevent a member of the association from offering or providing architectural services to a corporation in order to enable the corporation to provide architectural services in respect of a work or project situate outside Ontario.”

All I am saying is that corporation, whatever it is and for what reason it may be, will not be practising in Ontario and is certainly not going to be a member in Ontario.

The parliamentary assistant is now nodding his head and saying, “Yes, the corporation will be practising architecture in Ontario.”

Mr. Sterling: No. Basically, the actual work may be done in Ontario. The member may be working for a corporation which is doing work outside of the jurisdiction. That is why it is necessary. Under the present legislation an architect is not permitted to work for a corporation which is providing architectural services.

Mr. Renwick: Where is that prohibition under the act? It is not in the act.

Mr. Sterling: Where is the prohibition in the act? I would also like to indicate, if the work is done outside of Ontario, the architect, of course, would be subject to laws of that other jurisdiction. As a matter of interest I know architects are permitted to practise under a corporate structure in Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, if there is going to be more discussion on this bill, perhaps the committee should rise and report.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I gather it is the wish of the committee that we should not proceed this evening with Bill 176.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells the committee reported two bills with amendments and progress on another.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 333 standing on the Notice Paper. I also wish to table the response to petitions presented to the Legislature, sessional papers 261 to 264. (See appendix, page 5180.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.