The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all members of the House of the presence of a very distinguished guest in our gallery who is the guest of the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton). Our guest is Lord Balerno of Currie, CBE, House of Lords, Westminster. Would you please welcome him.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the honourable members that after three and a half weeks of constant and severe fire problems, we have finally reached a temporary breathing space in the forest fire situation in northern Ontario.

Because of a change in weather patterns in the north which began during the past weekend, the fire crews and water-bombing aircraft have been able to intensify their suppression and control activities. At this time the three major fires are being held and no other fires are giving us serious problems.

As of late yesterday we had a total of 58 fires burning in the province, but what was most remarkable was that no new fires were reported during the night between Sunday and yesterday, the first time there has been a nil report since May 7. The usual had been from 20 to 30 new fires per day, mainly caused by lightning.

Conditions have improved to the point that at midnight last night the ban on travel on side roads into the bush was removed in both northwestern and north-central regions. This means all operations including forest companies and tourist camps are back to near normal.

The only strong caution is that all people in the north are asked to take extreme care in the forest because conditions are still very dry. The restriction on open fires is still in effect in the northwestern region, but it has been lifted everywhere else in the north.

Most of the more than 4,000 people who were evacuated from their homes during the past two weeks have returned to their communities and the rest are on their way. No new communities are on evacuation alert at this time.

However, it is important to remember that although the changed weather conditions have helped to diminish the fires and the lack of lightning in recent days has cut down the number of new fires, overall conditions in the north are still hazardous. The extremely dry state of the forests needs a great deal more heavy rain before we are out of potential fire danger.

The largest fire, Kenora-23, covers a massive area, which has been compared to a strip 18 miles wide stretching from Lake Ontario at Toronto up to Lake Simcoe. Its perimeter is now estimated to be 179 miles. Although our crews are holding the fire, there are hundreds of hot spots and suppression is being concentrated on getting those out. Unless these hot spots are extinguished, the fire could again escape control and threaten nearby communities, particularly if the weather changes again.

However, because conditions have improved, a gradual phasing out of fire crews and support staff is being done across the north. Many of the 2,000 Kenora-23 firefighters are slowly being released, after each crew finishes its cleanup. What will be left is enough fire people to keep the blaze in check. Many of the men and women being released are members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff, including land planners, parks staff, accounts people, et cetera, who were rushed to the scene from all over the province, including many offices in southern Ontario and the main office at Queen’s Park.

Also being released are the extra firefighters who were recruited from across the province, many of them being experienced native people from the north. We are also releasing some of the aircraft that had been used to fight Kenora-23. At the peak day, which was last Saturday, May 31, there were 123 aircraft on that fire alone. There were nine Canso heavy water bombers, one Canadair CL215 heavy water bomber, two Twin Otters, 16 Otters, 15 Turbo Beavers and 80 helicopters. As of last night, 28 aircraft had been released. More will be able to leave the northwest in the next few days.

Among those already released are the CL215 heavy water bomber which came from Quebec, two Cansos and one Cessna Birddog from Alberta, one Canso heavy water bomber from Newfoundland and four military 212 helicopters with heavy bucket capability which came from the Department of National Defence force.

I would like to express my appreciation to those other provinces and the federal government for theft assistance during this fire emergency. Also, the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and British Columbia sent us fire suppression equipment, as did the US Forest Service, which flew in two huge planeloads of pumps and hoses from Alaska and from Boise, Idaho, early last week.

This is an ideal time for me to commend the men and women of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff, a total of 1,504 of our 4,300 people, who were directly engaged in fire operations and support during the emergency period of the last three to four weeks. These men and women are from every region of the province, and those who moved to the north did so at very short notice. Their dedication and willingness to help out in the emergency is something of which I am most proud, and I am sure the members will join me in this commendation.

I am thankful, too, that help was offered us by the conservation authorities during the emergency, particularly the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority which offered its equipment and its MNR-trained firefighters. We did not have to use them this time, but the spirit shown of “being in this together” is much appreciated.

2:10 p.m.

My ministry also owes a great deal to other agencies such as the Ontario Provincial Police and the ministries of Northern Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, Community and Social Services, and Industry and Tourism for their participation in handling the evacuation and travel problems and the evacuation contingency planning.

As for the leaders and residents of various Ontario municipalities affected by the fire emergency, they too deserve commendation for their willingness to co-operate, take leadership and put up with difficult conditions. Our experience through this past month reminds us again how strong, effective and courageous Ontario people can be -- people of all kinds, faced with a serious emergency or, in this case, a whole series of emergencies.

Finally, but by no means least, I am most impressed with the excellent job the various members of the news media did to cover the fire situation and bring reports to theft readers, listeners and viewers in the province and beyond our borders. Much of their work demanded the kind of long hours and difficulties that our fire staff had to put up with.

The fire situation has quietened down for the moment. People are getting back to normal in the north. Many of our staff are getting a well-deserved rest after weeks of no letup of responsibility and activity. We are praying that the worst is over for this season but we are not letting down our guard.

ANNIVERSARY OF ISLAM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members that this year marks the 1,400th anniversary of Islam according to the lunar calendar. I think it is most appropriate that this House recognize that anniversary and thus acknowledge the contributions that Ontarians of the Muslim faith have made to the life of this province.

Men, women and children of the Muslim faith have been living in Ontario for a century, but in the last two decades there has been a surge in the number of Muslim people choosing to make their lives here and, as a result, there are now close to 100,000 Muslims living in this province.

All of these people have contributed to making Ontario’s multicultural and multiracial society a genuinely religiously pluralistic society as well. At the same time, they have continued to be an integral part of a worldwide Muslim community that ranges from Africa and Asia to Europe and the New World.

The prophet Muhammad preached and reaffirmed the existence of one God, all-powerful and merciful. This rigorous monotheism was in the tradition of the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. At first persecuted in his own country, the prophet Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina. That emigration, the Hegira, marked the formal beginning of Islam.

Islamic culture and Islamic civilization have left a profound impact on the world, contributing much to learning and scholarship. For example, the first university in the world, Al-Azhar in Cairo, emerged from Islamic culture and civilization in the ninth century AD.

A number of remarkable contributions to such fields of learning as science, philosophy and architecture, including what we call Arabic numerals, also flowed from that culture. Indeed, western culture and civilization could not have grown and developed as they have without the impact of Islam, which preaches the primacy of universal ideas.

I hope to have the pleasure of marking this 1,400th anniversary of Islam in another way later this year. For the moment, however, I know that all members of this House would want to join the government and me in noting this momentous anniversary.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to associate those of us in the official opposition with the excellent remarks made by the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

This year one billion Muslims around the world are commemorating the journey of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, from Mecca to Medina. Since then, Islam has contributed to civilization in the fields of culture and science and philosophy. That was particularly important and we should remember that because it occurred in many instances during the period of the Dark Ages in Europe. The Renaissance was contributed to by many Muslim scholars and scientists. The minister has already made reference to Arabic numerals and, of course, the word “algebra” which is, in effect, an Arabic word.

The principles of Islam are the unity of mankind without regard to caste, colour, creed, race, language or nationality. These, after all, are the very same principles important to us in Canada. Our lives in this country are enriched by the presence of so many Muslim people. We are very grateful for the fact they are here contributing in so many ways to this country and to our society. My colleagues and I are very proud to join with the Muslim people in celebrating this 1,400th anniversary year of Islam.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the comments that have been made in marking the 1,400th anniversary of Islam and the contribution that Islam has made to the world. Among other things, all of us who have tried to reckon in Roman numerals owe a great debt to the introduction of Arabic numerals, which have made our lives so much easier.

There are many other much more profound contributions that have come through Islam over many years. The leader of the Liberal Party has mentioned in particular the creed of Islam that upholds the unity of mankind irrespective of colour, creed, race or nationality. Islam also stands for the principle of respect for other faiths and social justice for all. Those three principles are surely the kinds of principles which should underline a multicultural society here in Ontario.

I would like to say the traditional Arabic greeting, “Greetings of peace,” in Arabic: Assalamo alaikum. I would like in particular to recognize the presence of prominent representatives of Islam in the Legislature today. Dr. Alauddin Kharufa, director of the Muslim World League, who has come to Ontario from Mecca, Saudi Arabia: Assalamo alaikum. Mr. Dawud Assad, secretary-general of the Council of Mosques: Assalamo alaikum. Mr. and Mrs. Muinuddin with their son, who represent the Council of Muslim Communities of Canada: Assalamo alaikum.

INCIDENT OUTSIDE ONTARIO PLACE GATE

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on the incident that occurred outside the gates of Ontario Place last night. While we cannot reconstruct all the details as yet, the incident clearly resulted from an unusually large crowd unable to get into an already full Forum.

Our Ontario Place staff, always alert to crowd control, saw the problem developing and, as the Forum approached full capacity at about 7 p.m. for an 8:30 p.m. concert, arranged to close the gates at 7:30 p.m. and so informed the Ontario Provincial Police. To further ameliorate the problem, the starting time for the concert was moved up from 8:30 to 7:45 p.m.

As has happened on other occasions, particularly at rock concerts in other cities, the crowd, unable to get in on a first come, first served basis, reacted, causing damage and resulting in charges being laid. I have reviewed the situation with Bruce Longhurst, general manager of Ontario Place, and William Cooper, chairman of the board of directors of Ontario Place, and we are fully satisfied that the management and the police acted responsibly to contain the disturbance.

To emphasize, incidents at rock concerts appear to occur, by and large, where there is no advance purchase of preselected seating and no seating control. Because the Forum maintains its unique open characteristics by open seating arrangements, the suitability of the Forum for rock concerts is now being reviewed by the board of directors.

In the interim, the chairman of the board, the general manager of Ontario Place and I have agreed that, in order to protect the public at large and to maintain the successful atmosphere of Ontario Place, there will be no rock concerts until the board has had an opportunity to meet and review the situation to determine ways Ontario Place can provide entertainment appealing to a younger age group but more suitable to the open character of the Forum.

As Minister of Industry and Tourism for the province, I might add I feel confident that this city has a variety of facilities and provides ample suitable locations for rock concerts without sacrificing safety and property in open settings. I remind the House that the 10-year history of Ontario Place indicates only a very few incidents. It is clear that this tourist site can still provide a mix of programming that attracts people of all ages and tastes in an enjoyable setting.

2:20 p.m.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT EXTENSION TO MUNICIPAL PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that regulations to apply the Environmental Assessment Act to environmentally significant municipal projects have been approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. They will take effect today.

As a part of this government’s plan to phase in the act with minimum disruption, we did not apply it to municipalities when it first came into force in 1976. This provided time not only for consultation between the province and municipal representatives, but also to gain experience in applying the act to provincial projects.

It was necessary through this consultation to identify environmentally significant undertakings, to work out transitional or grandfather clauses for a smooth phasing-in of the act, and to avoid unfair application of this act to projects in advanced stages of design or implementation.

To achieve this, the Municipal Working Group was formed with municipal representatives and Ministry of the Environment staff in 1975. Its report was released in December 1976 for further comments from municipalities and other interested parties. Since then, drafts of proposed regulations to apply the act to municipalities have been before the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee on several occasions for its input, and I have met with it twice to ensure that the regulations would be generally acceptable.

As a result of this detailed consultation, we now have regulations that represent a consensus among all the parties involved -- the government, the municipalities, environmental and other interested groups.

The regulations cover five basic points:

They repeal the existing temporary exemption for municipal undertakings.

They define which projects are covered under the act and they include a general exemption for municipal projects with an estimated value of less than $2 million.

The regulations also contain a list of environmentally significant projects for which an environmental assessment will be required, whatever their value. In these cases, the $2-million exemption does not apply -- for example, new roads over one kilometre and waste disposal sites.

The regulations contain a grandfather clause to ensure that the act does not retroactively affect municipal projects already under way or in an advanced stage of planning and design. Municipal projects will not be included if, by today, the project has been approved by council resolution, land has been acquired specifically for the project, or a notice of application has been filed under the Expropriations Act for the undertaking. However, to ensure that this grandfather provision is not abused, the regulations also provide that the exemption be void unless the project is substantially under way in three years.

The regulations provide a one-year phase-in period so municipalities can adapt provincial class environmental assessment procedures for minor transportation projects, minor transmission lines, transformer stations and communication towers.

Under the class assessment, certain commonly undertaken projects will not require individual assessment procedures. Instead, they will follow certain general procedures for that class of project in order to streamline and simplify the application of the act. This process already exists for certain provincial projects and a committee is currently working on applying these same standards municipally. In addition, a bump-up revision will allow individual projects to be singled out for individual environmental assessment where unusually significant effects are expected.

That is the basic outline of the regulations coming into force today. To ensure that municipalities are well prepared to deal with the advanced planning procedures required under this act, staff from the ministry’s environmental approvals branch are preparing an education program. It will acquaint municipal officials with the regulations and prepare them to work within these new rules.

To provide public input on concerns about particular projects, the Premier (Mr. Davis) has named Dr. Donald A. Chant as an independent person to hear petitions on matters pertaining to additional designations or exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act. Dr. Chant is currently the chairman of the Environmental Assessment Steering Committee, which reports to the Premier.

A major concern of municipalities has been to ensure that implementation of the Environmental Assessment Act does not cause duplication and overlap in the approval and hearing process for major projects.

As indicated in the recent speech from the throne, the government is working on streamlining legislation, which will be introduced as soon as possible. It will state that there will be one comprehensive hearing and approval process in which all relevant provincial concerns would be addressed. The tribunal to hold these hearings will be representatives of both the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board.

With the need for good, sound environmental planning beyond a doubt, I am pleased to report that our experience has shown the Environmental Assessment Act is working well on provincial projects. In the last year, 57 undertakings have been submitted for assessment and so far 11 have successfully gone through this advanced planning procedure. The application of the act has resulted in only one project being referred to the assessment board for formal hearings and these are under way.

I feel confident the majority of municipalities share our environmental concerns. The regions of Waterloo and Hamilton-Wentworth have already demonstrated it by voluntarily placing projects under the legislation. I refer to the east-west arterial road in Cambridge and the Red Hill Creek Parkway in Hamilton-Wentworth.

By continued close cooperation between the provincial and municipal governments, we will be able to expand the protection to our environment that this act so readily provides.

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I shall be introducing for first reading An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. The bill will propose three changes to the act.

First, it will provide for the mandatory checkoff of union dues, or the equivalent amount thereof, as a minimum requirement in collective agreements where a union that has acquired bargaining rights in accordance with the provisions of the act so requests.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a victory for the NDP.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is a victory for common sense and the member should acquire some.

This provision will apply to collective agreements, other than those in the construction industry, concluded after the coming into force of this amendment.

Second, the bill proposes an amendment to permit an employer to require the Minister of Labour to direct a supervised vote of employees on the employer’s last contract offer. Under the proposed amendment, the minister is required to act upon the employer’s request, which may be made either before or after the commencement of a strike or lockout.

Third, the bill proposes an amendment to entitle all employees in the bargaining unit, whether or not such employees are members of the bargaining unit, to participate in all strike or ratification votes.

I believe all three amendments address important problems in industrial relations in Ontario and the bill represents a fair and equitable balance in respect of rights and obligations of trade unions, employers and employees. I shall, of course, be developing the rationale for each of these three changes in detail in the course of second reading.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that on April 22, I think it was, the Treasurer of Ontario stated he would be tabling a discussion paper in May to outline alternatives available to deal with the pressing situation of interest rates, in particular, with respect to home owners.

It is now June 3, and the promise made by the Treasurer has not yet been fulfilled. I think the privilege of this House and the problems of the province have been ignored.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not been asked a question in question period that I can recall on that particular issue for some time. I did report progress was being made and that I would be releasing information very shortly. That is the case.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding aluminum wiring. The minister will recall that he asked me to use my expertise on his behalf and tell him how to develop, he said, and I quote, “an effective advertising tool that will get people to get that inspection done.”

2:30 p.m.

Is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations aware that the one time that ads were placed in the paper -- which was back about the time of the Wilson report -- there were 8,600 calls made in the first six months? In the last six months there have only been 1,700 calls, largely because, apparently, such ads have not been appearing since then.

Therefore, may I share a suggestion with the minister? If he wants the people to respond, he should place the ads in the newspapers. That is surely an activity that his government has very little difficulty doing in many other realms.

In particular, does the minister not feel it is important to do so, since 15 per cent of the outlets that have been inspected have proven to be faulty?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Leader of the Opposition would take a look at the chronology. The ads were not placed initially. There was no reason to place ads initially because the media gave the program quite extensive coverage. Subsequently, when the calls began to tail off, we advertised. There was a significant lack of response from those newspaper advertisements.

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what I’m going to do. I am going to put out another series of advertisements, but I’m cutting them off as of July 15. I told him the other day there were still 200 or 300 people who had actually, physically, made appointments with the inspector, and did not keep them. I don’t want to deprive the rest of the program because of that kind of thing.

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition we have talked about it, we’ve gone into communities, we’ve done everything to try to get people to phone. I can honestly say, although I’ll place the ads, I do not expect a significant response from the print advertisement.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: I will accept the fact, and welcome the fact, that the minister will place the ads again. I assume the minister shares a concern that he would like people to do this inspection. I would therefore encourage him to use every means, not just the print media, in order to get people to understand that these faulty receptacles can lead to fire. I think it’s important that the minister do this.

With regard to the number of people who aren’t home after they arrange inspections, will the minister admit that is less than 10 per cent of the calls and the inspections that are arranged, and surely that is not a reason to withhold this important service from people whose safety might be involved?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is the service I am trying to provide to them. They are not 10 per cent over the whole period of time. These are the people who since March or April or July of last year asked for an inspection, and now suddenly aren’t there, even when they make appointments. That concerns me even more.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the 10 per cent of those who make arrangements.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Those are the ones who are out there. The other ones have had the inspections. This is my concern, that these people come forward.

Mr. S. Smith: I see your point, but --

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s my point.

Mr. S. Smith: No. There are 200,000 homes with aluminum wiring.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider tagging each bottle of liquor that he sells with a tag, notifying the people that the service is available?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are not 200,000 homes affected. They have some form of aluminum wiring, but I can tell the member that many of these aluminum-wired homes had some kind of inspection before. They know. Their situation has been cleared up, if indeed there was any problem.

The Leader of the Opposition should bear in mind that when we first started this we were so open about it that people said they wanted copper wiring inspections. We said: “Sure, we’ll inspect the copper wire.” We really wanted to take a look at the connector situation.

My concern about those last 200 homes is that this has been dragging on for months. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right. I have to produce a report. I want to produce the report, but I cannot produce a report while there are still 200 out there who for one reason or another, and it bothers me, aren’t having the inspection.

We have done everything that is humanly possible to get that message out there. The member is helping today, since he raised it again. We will get six or seven phone calls tomorrow. They will be promptly inspected.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, may I ask the following question? I can understand the minister’s concern about that particular 200 because he thinks they might be particularly at risk. Would the minister please table in the House the number of inspections that have been made? Is he not aware that from the opening of the aluminum wiring resource centre in early March 1979 there were 8,600 calls and 5,700 requests for inspections and, of these, only 443 were not completed? Since, as he says, 200,000 homes have aluminum wiring --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I didn’t; you did.

Mr. S. Smith: I say that 200,000 homes have some kind of aluminum wiring -- it is entirely possible and very likely that there are many more homes that do not even know about this problem which should be inspected. The real question is, what is the minister going to do to get, not just to the recalcitrant 200, but to the 200,000 homes that have aluminum wiring and should be inspected again?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, when something has been around for this length of time and the media, in prime time and in prime space, have devoted themselves to this problem, in addition to a great number of organizations and so on, and somebody refuses to make the phone call after all of that -- and I will give it one more shot and I will be pleasantly surprised if there is much of a flow-in -- if the Leader of the Opposition can tell me how to get somebody to make a phone call, write a letter or something else when he does not want to, then I welcome hi’s suggestion.

INCIDENT OUTSIDE ONTARIO PLACE GATE

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism regarding the very unfortunate events at Ontario Place and the statement which he was kind enough to make to the House.

I understand from his statement that there will be no more rock concerts at Ontario Place, at least until there has been some chance to re-evaluate the policy concerning crowd control, seat arrangements and so on. Is the minister aware that there are at least four rock groups that I know of already booked to come to Ontario Place? They are Rough Trade on June 10, FM on June 16, Jefferson Starship on June 26 and Devo on July 15, and possibly there are others as well. Can the minister say whether he will be cancelling those particular groups and, if so, whether there are any contractual payments that will have to be made to those groups as a consequence of such cancellation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, a decision was taken this morning in conjunction with the general manager of Ontario Place and the chairman of the board of Ontario Place to cancel those particular concerts. It is estimated the cost will be around $15,000.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: The $15,000 cost, I take it, will be assumed by Ontario Place. The minister nods his head. Have any other alternatives been looked at, or is it the opinion of the board that time does not permit alternatives such as seats being allocated earlier in the day, or moving the concert to some other locale, or something of that kind? Have those alternatives been looked at or is it the minister’s view that the time is not sufficient to permit those alternatives to be properly examined?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, the latter part of the member’s statement is correct: there is not sufficient time and we really do not want to risk another incident at Ontario Place. Therefore, Ontario Place would much rather absorb the $15,000 cost and, in essence, bide the time to assess the situation adequately rather than risk any further incidents. There is a real desire to find a way to accommodate the younger people who want their share of the entertainment provided at Ontario Place without destroying the general atmosphere. We are going to take some time to assess the situation.

Mr. Eakins: Could I ask the minister a supplementary? In view of the popularity of these concerts at Ontario Place -- and they are a bargain, especially the rock concerts, compared to those at Maple Leaf Gardens -- will he be adjusting the prices for some of these performances so that Ontario Place operates in the black instead of having upwards of a $1-million deficit per year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say to the tourism critic that this week the Liberal Party of Ontario has suggested we are spending too much on tourism advertising and now it is suggesting we do not charge enough for one of our major tourism attractions. I find that unusual, particularly from the tourism critic.

We went through this matter at the cabinet level this year, the question of whether the fees for Ontario Place should be raised either just for the concerts or in a general admission. I must say, I think one of the great things about Ontario Place is that it is so open and accessible to all members of the public.

If, for example, we were to say the Toronto Symphony Orchestra or the Hamilton Philharmonic or the ballet should have special prices put on of $3 or $3.50, then we would be losing the opportunity to bring to people who ordinarily cannot get a ticket for the TSO the opportunity for $2.50 to hear the TSO.

2:40 p.m.

Likewise, if we then raised the price of a ticket for rock concerts, we would be quite properly accused of charging more for rock concerts for young people than we charge for the symphony. I think as long as we can keep that an open park for the public at a reasonable rate of $2.50, the $800,000 or $900,000 subsidy my ministry provides is very well worth the money.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I just want the minister to know I have some young children at home who will be really put off by this, particularly at the cancellation of the rock group Devo. They are enormously popular and they bring in great revenues now. What would be the loss of revenue, rather than the ministry’s costs, arising out of that cancellation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to estimate now because we do not know what shows will be successful in replacing those events. It is quite clear that some of the rock concerts have brought in much more revenue to Ontario Place than, for example, have the ballet, the TSO and the Hamilton Philharmonic.

One of the things we try to do is strike a balance between the different types of entertainment we provide. It is not really a situation of the bottom line because we could wipe out the deficit at Ontario Place if we were to book rock concerts in there of the popularity of the event we had last night. We would fill the place every night and wipe out our deficit in about three weeks. That is not what the event is all about. We will try to tell the member’s daughter where that rock group is going to be next Tuesday night instead of at Ontario Place.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is good at all that the minister would cancel these rock concerts. Why does he not put the manpower and some of the money he has spent on some of the advertising lately in his ministry to work and get things organized down there within the next week or so so that he could have these concerts go ahead? If the minister was properly organized, I cannot see any reason at all why he could not put the machinery into effect so that we could hold these concerts and not have them cancelled for all the youth and the adults across this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know the member has not had an opportunity to talk to his colleague on his left, but I think he would tell him, because he does know a little bit about the tourism industry, that if one has a tourism attraction that has to be surrounded by a great deal of security, police forces or whatever, then the tourism attraction itself is destroyed.

I think there are ways to accommodate all the citizens of Ontario and their needs at Ontario Place without turning it into an armed fortress. May I say to the member for Quinte, if he can really suggest or prove that the security arrangements at Ontario Place are inadequate, then he should do so. In fairness to the Ontario Place staff, which is a very dedicated, ambitious young staff with little history of incidents, then he should prove it; otherwise he really should not make those kinds of accusations.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Granted that Ontario Place should be available at very low prices, does the minister not think the management should be blamed at least for very bad scheduling, because it does not take a genius to understand that Ontario Place is not Maple Leaf Gardens and, if one has a rock group, one can have the kind of action that happened last night?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, although I am not a devotee of Teenage Head, which I understand was the group there last night, may I say I am informed it is essentially a less-known rock group which usually performs in bars and to smaller audiences of about 600 or 700 people.

Mr. S. Smith: That is a Hamilton group you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to come to that. The member will be pleased to know they are an import replacement in that they are a young Canadian group from the fine city of Hamilton.

Quite frankly, with all the expertise we do have on hand, we did not expect that a group which traditionally performs to 600 or 700 people would attract as many as 12,000 or 13,000 people. We did not expect 12,000 or 13,000 people. To that extent I must say the Ontario Place staff misjudged the popularity of what I understand is a fine, certainly popular, Canadian rock group. But I do not think that makes them subject to a great deal of criticism. I do not think many people would have anticipated last night’s crowd.

JOHNS-MANVILLE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I would say in preface that I welcome the decision of the government to accept the principle of union security as a result of years of effort by the labour movement and by the New Democratic Party. We thank you.

Now that the government has decided to protect the rights of unorganized workers with the piece of legislation being submitted today, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that the 173 workers from the asbestos-cement pipe plant at Johns-Manville Canada Inc., who were on strike a few days ago and who were subsequently terminated, have now been told by the unemployment insurance office in Belleville that they will not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because the firing occurred when they were on strike. Will the minister intervene on behalf of those workers to ensure they are not barred from unemployment benefits because they were engaged in a strike into which they had been provoked by management?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, unemployment insurance is a federal matter, and it would be beyond my jurisdiction to suggest that I could intervene and correct any matter within federal jurisdiction. However, I will be pleased to make inquiries on behalf of those employees.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not prepared to stick up for workers who were fired? Does the minister not agree that Johns-Manville was acting in bad faith by firing those employees after a series of bargaining sessions where the company refused to acknowledge the plant might be closed and refused to talk about the issues the union wanted to discuss, including severance and closure procedures? Does the minister not agree the company was acting in bad faith? Why will the minister not agree to act on behalf of workers who are pushed around by rotten management in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are a great number of broad, sweeping statements there that I cannot be sure I agree with. The fact of the matter is, as the leader of the third party knows, that there was no collective agreement, because they were on strike.

To say they were fired and what has happened is unfair labour practice are matters that would have to be assessed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. But, as the leader of the third party knows, the collective agreement had terminated and a new one had not commenced. So we are not talking about firing under the terms of a collective agreement. I am not even sure of the details of the firings the leader of the third party has talked about. I will be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the termination is a permanent one? We are probably going to see it for the balance of the employees before too long. That means if they do not qualify at least for unemployment insurance benefits, which they certainly should -- and I grant that is a federal matter -- we are going to be picking up the costs, both in attempts to replace them and in the welfare bills that will result. It is an obviously unjust decision of the unemployment insurance commission. Would the minister not intervene?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the leader of the third party I will inquire into the matter, but the issue of unemployment insurance benefits is a federal one.

Mr. Cassidy: What will it take to arouse a sense of outrage about Johns-Manville on the part of the minister? Is the minister not aware that he himself was misled by Johns-Manville when the company assured him, less than a month ago, that they had no intention of closing the plant? Will the minister not go to the defence of these workers and of workers in other situations across the province? Is he going to leave the door open for companies to evade their responsibilities to workers whom they intend to fire by allowing them or provoking them to go on strike and then issuing letters of termination after the strike has occurred?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Unlike the leader of the third party, I like to explore the facts and discuss matters with the parties involved before I make the sweeping decision he makes. I have agreed to talk to the parties about it.

2:50 p.m.

IRON ORE PELLETS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Natural Resources about his allegation that there is a serious oversupply in the area of iron ore. Could the minister explain why he keeps insisting there is an oversupply of iron ore when in the United States in 1980 there is going to be an increase in the annual capacity for iron ore production of between 30 and 35 metric tons?

Can he explain his allegations about oversupply when, in fact, the price of iron ore has gone up from 59.9 cents US per unit in December 1978 to 66 cents in August 1979 and to 72.5 cents US at the present time?

If iron ore is in such a glut, how does the minister explain these facts and why is it that the price keeps on going up while we are not getting more contracts here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to get the figures for steel production in the United States and the situation for the industry in the United States.

I think the honourable member meant something more than an increase of 35 metric tons.

Mr. Cassidy: Thirty-five million.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That sounds more correct. There is a possibility, but I doubt that amount would be produced. However, I will get the figures on production, because my understanding is the production of ore has gone down. The production of steel is dropping. In fact, I noticed the other day that the output of Canadian ore from Labrador has been reduced because of soft markets. I will get the total figures to the honourable member.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister not agree that what is happening is that the large American steel companies have entered into what amounts to a cartel which both fixes prices and determines where the market is going to be for iron ore, and that our three big Ontario steel companies have effectively joined in that Great Lakes cartel and are likewise taking their supplies from the United States rather than taking them from iron ore mines here in Ontario?

Does the minister not believe that the Canadian steel companies should be encouraged, if not made, to ensure that they take their iron ore supplies for the 1980s from Ontario rather than as part of a US- based cartel?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have made two lengthy statements and told members a bit of technical information about the problem of some of our Ontario iron ore as far as its use in existing furnaces is concerned. I will get the information to which the honourable member was referring in connection with the US situation before I make any further comments.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in questioning last week, I asked the minister whether he had contacted his federal counterpart to discuss this whole matter of the iron and steel business in Ontario and Canada generally and to see whether they could rationalize the situation so that Canadian ore could or would be used in those cases where it was available. Is the minister setting up such meetings with his federal counterpart? If not, will he do so in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope to be setting up such a meeting in the near future along with a couple of other federal ministers with whom I have other things to discuss.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on May 22, the minister said the government of Ontario was watching closely along with the federal government, with the hope of anticipating iron ore needs which our provincial sources can supply in the years to come. Can the minister elaborate on what that statement means? Does it mean we are going to watch while the ore boats keep on coming from Michigan and northern Minnesota, or does it mean the eight or nine million tons extra of iron ore that this province is going to require will be coming from iron ore mines in this province and will be produced by Canadian miners from Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The statement meant exactly what it said. We are watching closely to see opportunities for our kind of ore.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMISSIONS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Since Ontario Hydro’s coal-fired generating stations -- Nanticoke, Lambton, Lakeview, Lennox and Hearn -- contribute 1,300 tons of SO₂ per day, which is approximately 50 per cent as much as Inco, and since that percentage will increase as Inco cuts back to 1,950 tons per day and Nanticoke increases in the next two years, all of which means that such generating stations are making a significant contribution to the acid rain problem, why is the minister so reluctant to deal with Ontario Hydro? Why are we not preparing control orders for these plants?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have no reluctance at all. We are in the process of considering this and perhaps it is likely a control order will be placed on Ontario Hydro and these plants. I do not want to leave the member with any other impression except that Ontario Hydro will also have to reduce their emissions.

Mr. Gaunt: Why has this taken so long, and when does the minister anticipate this will be done?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It has not taken long. I think it was only a day or two ago that members were worried we were rushing the Inco thing far too quickly, and saying the hearing should be delayed. If the member wants notice now that there will be those opportunities to comment, I think he should take notice today that he will have those opportunities. I do not think a position will be prepared for consideration this session, meaning this spring session, either in the Legislature or in estimates.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, has the minister asked Hydro to prepare estimates of the cost of putting in scrubbers or other abatement measures for these coal-fired generating plants? If so, will he table those cost estimates in the House?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Indeed we have had several meetings with Ontario Hydro. On one or two occasions the Minister of Energy joined in those discussions. I can assure the member that Ontario Hydro is preparing those estimates of costs and they will be available eventually.

Mr. Gaunt: Will the minister not agree that until he deals with Ontario Hydro, an emanation of the government, the ministry will have no credibility to deal with private industry to try to clean up the mess in private industry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is rather interesting. We turn our attention to a company that has been sort of the symbol and get that nicely done, then somehow or other the argument changes around that we should have redirected our attention to a government-related agency.

Let me tell the member, we are attacking on all fronts. Interestingly enough, I think he still has not quite heard the statement I made about two weeks ago in this House that all the emissions from Ontario Hydro -- all of them; every plant he could name -- do not equal those from one plant in a small community called Mitchell, in the United States. When they too get on side -- and it is absolutely essential; the member knows how important it is that they get on side -- we will have the problem solved. But we are attacking here in Ontario well in advance of any other jurisdiction, and I think the member knows that.

COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware that in the United Steelworkers Union’s attempt to trace 100 workers from the old Hamco coke oven operation in Hamilton, out of 35 workers it has been able to trace to date, 27 have died of cancer? Given the long concern of the steelworkers’ union and of coke oven workers generally for coke oven emission standards, can the minister tell this House why there is a delay in setting coke oven emission standards in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree there is a delay. The member will recall it was either late February or early March that I called together a meeting of representatives from the three major steel companies and the steelworkers so that they could have open and frank discussions about the issue, and I think there was general agreement that that was the proper way to approach it.

To date, we have received a brief from the steelworkers and a brief from Dofasco, and it is my understanding that a brief will be in from the other two companies within the next two weeks. As soon as we have those briefs, we will tabulate them in book form and forward copies to each of the interested parties and then hold another meeting to review them. I think we are tackling the problem in a very appropriate way and in a way which, we hope, will not end up with problems such as they have had in the United States, with interminable delays, for years, with cases held up in the courts.

3 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: The meeting the minister is talking about was held on February 20, between the union, the companies and officials of his ministry. At that meeting there was an agreement reached that all parties, the union and the steel companies, would submit their briefs on what should be included in coke oven emission standards within six weeks. Dr. Rodney May, who attended that meeting, was asked specifically, “if the briefs aren’t in within six weeks, are you prepared to take action?” He told them the ministry was prepared to act on its own. That was on February 20. The only party which had its brief in within the six weeks was the steelworkers’ union. Dofasco’s is in now, which must be a relatively recent development.

Can the minister tell us why the ministry hasn’t moved on its own and why it is now some four months, not six weeks, and most of those briefs still aren’t in from the steel-making companies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to assure members that I have had staff inquire whether there has been undue delay, and I know it is delay to those of us interested in the problem. I am sure members know Dr. May left four or five weeks after that, and perhaps the impetus he gave to the division over this particular issue is not the same.

I have made inquiries about the process at regular intervals and have been assured the parties are making diligent efforts to bring the briefs forth. I have the dates set now. I have given them to the member. Stelco is within the next week and Algoma by mid-June. I think we are on the way, and we hope we will achieve some workable emission standards and not have to go through the dreadful problems they have in the United States.

CANADIAN CAR DIVISION STRIKE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Since the Hawker Siddeley Canadian Car division in Thunder Bay has been struck for more than two months, has the minister taken any action towards mediation concerning this problem?

Mr. Kerrio: Whisper it to him.

Mr. Hennessy: All right, give me a kiss.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in view of what is taking place, I want to sit down for a minute.

The Hawker Siddeley Canadian Car division has been on strike since March 31. It is normal practice for the union involved and the certified bargaining agent for Hawker Siddeley that negotiations are carried on between the parties without a third-party mediator.

However, I am aware the strike has been going on now for more than two months, and we have had contact with the parties. A senior mediator, Mr. Terry Mancini, will be meeting with the parties on June 10 to commence mediation to see if we may be of assistance.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, May I speak on a matter of personal privilege? Following a review of yesterday’s Hansard, it has been brought to my attention by members of my staff that my response to a supplementary question by the member for Bellwoods might have the effect of inadvertently misleading the honourable member. It relates to the use of the word “audit.”

In my previous responses to questions relating to the Hamilton and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, I don’t recall whether I have used the word “audit.” However, yesterday, in the supplementary question the member for Bellwoods did use the word and in my answer, I also used it. I would like to clarify that by indicating that although it is true there has been a financial review conducted by the financial officers of my ministry and the director of our financial audit branch, I am advised it was not a formal audit as such. I would like to clarify that. I ought to have used the term “financial review” as opposed to “audit.” I understand there is quite a significant technical difference.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege; it is strictly correcting the record of a false impression which may have been left.

Mr. McClellan: If I may add to the correction, Mr. Speaker: I simply want to point out that in his answer to the question of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on Thursday, May 29, the minister said:

“Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the staff of my ministry, both financial officers and auditors subsequently, on two occasions have examined the financial situation of that association.” If it has not been audited, it should be. When it is audited, the minister should provide the audit to the public and to the parties.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the correctness of my original response to the member for Hamilton East still stands.

OPP CARS

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker; it deals with a specific area of the province, but it will have ramifications for the rest of the province in the next few years.

In view of the fact that the township of Sarnia has purchased three Volkswagen Rabbit vehicles for use on regular patrols, and in view of the fact that the Police Association of Ontario has passed a resolution calling for the use of full-frame vehicles only for patrol purposes, would the Solicitor General indicate to the House whether he intends to issue a statement in support of the use of full-frame vehicles in view of his own concern for safety, and would he indicate to the House what the policy will be as it relates to the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was not aware of this fact being a matter of some contention so far as the Police Association of Ontario is concerned, Mr. Speaker. I have seen Volkswagens utilized for several years now by the Metropolitan Toronto police department, for example.

I can speculate as to the concerns of the Ontario Police Association, although I think they probably will be communicated to me. As the member knows, we cannot dictate to individual police forces the nature of the vehicles which they purchase. I do not know of any intention on the part of the OPP to purchase such vehicles, but I can not say that such vehicles have not been purchased. Before saying anything further about it, I would like to know in a little more detail the nature of the concerns that have been expressed by the Police Association of Ontario.

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister agree with me that when the government of Ontario is providing tax dollars through the Employment Development Fund to American subsidiaries, such as Ford, and to a certain extent providing assistance to Chrysler, at this particular time of high unemployment in the Canadian automobile industry, police commissions should be supporting that industry by purchasing Canadian-made vehicles?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly would like to see a Canadian preference shown with respect to hiring and purchases on the part of all our citizens in this province.

USE OF DRUG DEPO-PROVERA

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the nonapproved use of the drug Depo-Provera as a birth control injection in some seven Ontario institutions with more than 230 mentally retarded women. Is the minister now prepared to ban the use of this drug in our own institutions in the light of the worldwide evidence linking this drug in the nonapproved use to cancer of the cervix, cancer of the breast and cancer of the uterus?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the honourable member means by the use of the term “nonapproved use.” The drug to which he is referring has never been used, to the best of my knowledge, in any of our facilities except under the supervision of a medical doctor. I will undertake to get back to him with full details on it.

I have had a number of consultations with staff on that matter. Each time I have been assured that the use of the medication has been carefully supervised and that the best advice we can get is that it is safe. I will, however, undertake to get back to him with a full account on that.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister apparently has some difficulty with the fact that an American pharmaceutical corporation can manufacture and distribute a drug but cannot get approval in its own country for that kind of use. In the process of this review, will the minister table in this House the full scope of the use of this drug, the kind of consents that were involved and all of the information which he can find concerning whether this is or is not a carcinogenic agent?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I shall undertake to provide the honourable member with all of the information I can get. It is my recollection that the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has also undertaken to get back to the member on the same subject.

3:10 p.m.

CHICKEN PROCESSING PLANT CLOSURE

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) presented a question, and there was a supplementary question from the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

I am well aware of the problem facing the chicken industry in Ontario. My position, as stated many times, is that every province should have the opportunity to produce and process chicken to meet the demands for chicken in the province above the base quota allocation in the plant.

I do not feel that Ontario’s 1980 quota allocation is sufficient to supply Ontario markets with fresh chicken. The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency has cut the 1980 global allocation three times during the past few months. The most recent cut was made in April when provincial production allocations were reduced by five per cent for the third and fourth quarters.

With respect to imports, I have taken the position as Minister of Agriculture and Food that I cannot support additional chicken imports under supplementary permits. It is my view, shared by the Ontario chicken producers and processors, that any increase in demand for chicken in Ontario should be met from increased production in Ontario. The answer to the situation is a larger allocation to Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister answered the question as to how he intends to save the processors from going out of business. They simply cannot compete with the cheap imports coming in.

Does the minister not agree that quotas and the price of live chicken are presenting a problem today to the processors who have indicated they are going out of business? If we have more than enough quota now, why would the minister go down to Ottawa as a signatory and demand that there be 40 million pounds more of chicken given to Ontario? Quotas are a problem.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I believe I answered that question. I suggested in my statement that Ontario should have the opportunity to supply the demands of Ontario. Under the present allocation, we are not able to do that.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN WORK PLACE

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour dealing with sexual harassment of female employees in the work place. The results of studies conducted by such organizations as the Working Women’s United Institute and the Northwestern Ontario Women’s Centre show that, in most cases studied, the harassers held managerial positions that included the right to hire or fire women, and that complaints of harassment led to retaliation, including the firing of 24 per cent of the women, with 42 per cent being pressured into resigning.

Would the minister amend the Employment Standards Act to impose a specific penalty on any employer or person acting on his behalf who participates in or allows an employee to be sexually harassed? Will he further amend legislation to set up grievance procedures for handling sexual harassment cases so that job jeopardizing will not result by virtue of those complaints?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I share the member’s concern about the nature and the near viciousness of the problem of sexual harassment in particular cases. He probably knows very well that under the present human rights legislation, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is already hearing many cases of sexual harassment. If one looked back over the last four or five months, it has probably been one of the major complaints they have been receiving and referring to inquiries.

I think it is fair to say that in the employment context the human rights commission is addressing that particular issue. That still does not cover areas other than the employment context, and I trust that is an area I will be able to look at on another occasion.

Mr. Stong: As the Minister of Labour looks into this problem, will the Attorney General confer with his counterpart in the federal government to expand the present sections of the Criminal Code dealing specifically with employer and female employee relationship and urge in particular that section 153 of the Criminal Code be amended to include all forms of sexual harassment that occur in the work place and not be limited solely to sexual intercourse?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am very interested to have the honourable member’s suggestion, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that the issue he raises is a very serious one. The only question I have is whether the Criminal Code is the appropriate legislation to deal with such a problem. It may be or it may not be. But I will certainly be happy to consider it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would direct a supplementary to the Minister of Labour on this, Mr. Speaker. I was amazed by his response to the initial question by the member for York Centre.

With regard to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is he not aware that under the current legislation only 128 cases have gone before that commission in the last 12 months? That represents something like 0.007 per cent of working women in Ontario, whereas the surveys that have been mentioned by the member for York Centre and all the other surveys indicate that 50 to 88 per cent of women face sexual harassment in the work place.

Would he not think it would be appropriate to introduce an amendment, such as I introduced by private member’s bill on May 23, to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code so that sexual harassment in the work place is specifically included in the legislation? Would he not now take this opportunity to adopt the principle I put forward about a week and a half ago?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if the member were to speak to the human rights commissioners he would find the number of sexual harassment complaints has been increasing quite dramatically over the past few months. As for his premise that he has introduced a novel idea, that is the law now under the Ontario Human Rights Code. I am concerned about its application beyond the employment context. That is what I said I would also look into.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that in a speech the minister recently gave to the auto parts manufacturers he stated he was in favour of 100 per cent Canadian value added in the auto industry under the auto pact; and in view of the fact that the statistics that were released today indicate there is another 20 per cent increase in the deficit in the auto pact in the first four months of this year over and above last year’s record deficit -- the deficit has gone from $788.7 million to $947.7 million, what specific efforts has the minister made to convince his very good friend in Ottawa, the Honourable Herb Gray, that action has to be taken to correct this problem in order to achieve the 100 per cent Canadian value added?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only put the case as strongly as possible to the federal government in terms of achieving that 100 per cent Canadian value added. In terms of how we put the case, we have indicated, for example, that those kinds of requests and demands should be handled in the context of any failure by the Big Three to meet their commitments under the auto pact. The member knows that from time to time certain members of the Big Three or Big Four have failed to meet their auto pact commitments and have had to go to the federal government and often have been relieved of their explicit commitments under the pact.

One of the things we have suggested to the federal government is that as a condition of releasing them from certain obligations under the auto pact from time to time, it should seek a new arrangement in terms of the CVA requirements flowing from the auto pact.

Another proposition we have put to them is that in the longer-term situation as they go and have consultations in Washington this coming summer, we would be willing to consider any proposal the federal government puts before us which would call for some changes on the assembly side as a trade-off in order to achieve a greater degree of Canadian value added in Canadian automotive production.

Those are just two specific examples we can give of the efforts we are making to encourage the federal government to take a rather hard line on this very important topic. As I said in those speeches and on other occasions, we truly must do better in CVA because the world auto parts market is where the future lies for our province. We have a tremendous opportunity in that area.

I hope the member will join us in encouraging the federal government to take some risks in those negotiations and to seek those goals.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Where is Patrick Lavelle?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is working for me.

Mr. Cooke: Would the minister not agree a first step that has to be accomplished is for the federal government to agree to disclose, in an annual report, how the Big Four are performing under the auto pact? What steps has he taken to accomplish that?

Second, would the minister not also agree, since 95 per cent of the auto jobs are here in Ontario, that this government and he, as minister, have a responsibility to put in writing a formal position paper as to exactly what this government thinks should be happening in the auto industry and with the auto pact?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to making the auto pact compliance figures public, I called for that in the same speech to which the member referred, to the auto parts manufacturers. To clarify it, this government believes the federal government should make arrangements to release the figures regarding compliance with the auto pact and make those figures public so that this government, and the public at large, can assess the performance of the auto makers against their undertakings in the auto pact.

It seems to me that although we are faced with a great deal of political pressure in the United States with regard to some of the changes we want to mount in the auto pact, we do not have a lot of political clout on this side of the border. One of the ways to build up that sort of political clout is to establish some public understanding of how poorly we are doing on the auto parts side of the auto pact. So we believe those figures should be made public.

Second, the member put a very good question as to whether we should put our position in writing formally to the government in terms of renegotiation or further discussions of the auto pact. I am not sure about that, quite frankly. I am not sure that making public a document which we send to the federal government would help their negotiating position. It often does quite the reverse. It often arms the people with whom the federal government must negotiate with some information they could somehow use to undermine some of the points the federal government is making and sometimes to try to play us off against the federal government. I am not sure.

We are going to have some more discussions with the federal government and, at the conclusion of those discussions, we will decide whether that sort of formal public declaration might be helpful or might prove to be a hindrance in those negotiations. Also, we must rely upon the success of the federal government in conducting those negotiations.

I cannot sit down without referring to the fact that my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) reminded me that in my earlier answer I neglected to point out we have hired the very persuasive, effective and knowledgeable Pat Lavelle to help us, both in analysing our performance under the auto pact and in speaking to his very close friend in the federal government to pressure them to achieve the goals we are seeking.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to increase our share of the auto parts manufacturing, is the minister aware that Volkswagen, just yesterday, signed a formal agreement to take over the US missile plant in Sterling, Michigan, Sterling being a suburb of the city of Detroit, and that we now have bumpers for Volkswagens being manufactured in the city of Windsor? Has the minister or his officials approached Volkswagen in an attempt to get them to manufacture either the engines for the Volkswagen car or parts in unused facilities in the city of Windsor, for example, in the Chrysler engine plant?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we have approached Volkswagen, along with others, specifically because Volkswagen has signed a duty remission agreement with the federal government. This gives Volkswagen an extra incentive to put those kinds of installations in Ontario. So we have had discussions with Volkswagen and others with regard to doing those precise things the member is talking about. I would hope, by the end of this year, we will have success with a couple of those companies.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that the minister announced his interest assistance program for agriculture last Thursday, does this include the tobacco farmers in Ontario? If not, does he not consider that their costs for energy, chemicals, fertilizers, et cetera, are just as great as any other farmers’ costs? If they meet the criteria set up by the ministry, why should they not be allowed to participate in the program?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, first, I have made it quite clear from day one that the purpose of our subsidizing the interest was to encourage the farmer to plant the grain crops that will contribute to the food supply for the people in this province.

In response to the question, does tobacco qualify? I have made it quite clear to the chairman of the tobacco board that the portions of the crops the tobacco farmers grow that are food, will qualify, but not the growing of tobacco. It was pointed out to me that several of them grow corn, soybeans and other crops of that nature; so that portion will qualify, but only that portion.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether grape growers qualify for the interest supplement?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate where the seed producer stands in this scheme of things? How can he discriminate against other producers, such as flower producers, plant producers -- the many producers who produce other than food products? They are farmers and they are contributing to the economy the same as everyone else.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, our concern was that there be sufficient food to feed the people of this province. That was the number one consideration.

NATURAL RESOURCE REVENUES

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Since the Premier and his government govern by polls, may I assume he is aware of a poll done by the Ontario Mining Association and commissioned to Goldfarb Consultants, his good friends, which states that in Ontario only 27 per cent of the people polled believe that the resources in Ontario should strictly belong to the private sector? Would the Premier shuck off his free enterprise robes and take a rational, unbiased, nonstraitjacket ideological look at the whole question of resources in Ontario and take into consideration as well the recommendation the all-party select committee of this Legislature made back in 1975, which recommended the government should be taking part in new ventures in the resource industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are taking part in new ventures every day of the week, including the resource sector. The members opposite do not support it, but we are endeavouring to help and are receiving a great deal of credit up in the north for so doing.

I am not aware of the poll. I do not pay as much attention to polls as does the honourable member. The only poll is the one -- well, we all know the saying --

Mr. Laughren: If time runs out, it isn’t my fault.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Nickel Belt is saying if he runs out of time, it is my fault. How could he say that?

Mr. Laughren: I’m asking the Premier to take a rational look at it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One could argue whether he really expected me to agree with the question he asked me.

Listen, everything this government does is rational. It will not change; our approach will continue to be rational.

Mr. Laughren: I can only assume that means the Premier will take a rational look at the whole question.

Given the fact that in Saskatchewan they receive about 13 per cent of the value of their mineral production -- minerals, excluding oil and gas -- in the form of revenues to the province, whereas in Ontario we receive in the neighbourhood of two per cent, and given the fact that the mining industry in Ontario has never encouraged the development of a mining machinery industry -- although we are number two in the world in the production of minerals we are number one in the imports of mining machinery -- does the Premier not understand that is fundamentally wrong? Will he take a look at it to see if he is satisfied with those kinds of statistics?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not satisfied that we do not manufacture more mining machinery in this province. I can agree with that. I cannot agree with the honourable member that one can compare the administration in Saskatchewan with the very excellent administration here in Ontario. There are some basic philosophical differences, and I expect those philosophical differences will continue. I have news for the member for Nickel Belt. All of his persuasive powers in the world are not going to change that.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Breaugh, from the standing committee on procedural affairs, presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this report points out to the members of the House that there are some matters which need to be clarified regarding the position of witnesses before committee. The basic recommendation of the report is that the committee seek the advice of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in this matter. In our deliberations, we found it to be an exceedingly complicated matter. We point out in the text of the report itself that there are matters in there which members of this House and, in particular, those who chair committees ought to be aware of, even in advance of any report which might come from the Ontario Law Reform Commission. We present that now for the consideration of the House.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved first reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTEOL ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 90, An Act to control Professional Fund-raising Corporations.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the licensing of companies and bonding of personnel. It would require the company to file a financial statement with the minister after each fund-raising event and would limit by regulation the amount that could be charged over and above direct expenses. It is not the intention to interfere with local Red Feather, United Appeal or similar drives where much of the organizational work is of a voluntary nature and expenses incurred are a very small proportion of the total proceeds.

ENVIRONMENTAL MAGNA CARTA ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 91, An Act to establish an Environmental Magna Carta for Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide an environmental Magna Carta for Ontario. The bill permits an action to be brought in Ontario courts to recover damages for the degradation and contamination of the environment. The bill sets out other rights relating to access to courts and tribunals, freedom of information and public participation in environmental regulations. The bill further provides for a study into methods for providing funds to persons and public interest groups for the purpose of ensuring that points of view representative of significant bodies of opinion are adequately represented in environmental proceedings.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. McEwen, on behalf of Mr. Van Horne, moved first reading of Pr21, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

MARY AGNES SHUTER ESTATE ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Estate of Mary Agnes Shuter.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 153, 175, 177 to 180 and 182 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2475.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 10:

That, pursuant to the resolution of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario of Friday, May 9, 1980, a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on constitutional reform be appointed to make recommendations towards the achievement of a new constitution for Canada which would satisfy the diverse aspirations of all Canadians;

And that a report of the committee be submitted to the assembly not later than October 1, 1980, with the provision that the committee be authorized to release its report during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy with the Clerk of the Assembly and that such deposit shall be reported to the assembly on the resumption of the session;

And that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

And that the committee have power to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant;

And that the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and be empowered to employ such assistance as it deems advisable, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Internal Economy;

And that during the summer adjournment of the assembly changes in the membership of the committee may be made by notification in writing in the Clerk of the Assembly by the government House leader, or any member named by him, with respect to government members, and by the opposition House leaders, or any members named by them, with respect to opposition members;

And that such changes in the membership of the committee be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the assembly when Parliament resumes;

And that the committee be composed of 15 members, as follows: MacBeth (chairman), Campbell, Conway, Di Santo, R. F. Johnston, Leluk, McCaffrey, Ramsay, Renwick, Roy, Samis, Sweeney, G. Taylor, J. A. Taylor, Villeneuve.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I should mention that, apart from the ordinary vocal support of the resolution, this party participated with the minister in drafting the resolution and we look forward to participating in this committee. With the time frame that has been set up, with the terms of reference that have been indicated in forming the select committee and, if I may say without sounding too pompous, with the quality of the members who are going to be on this committee, we look forward to making a positive and worthwhile contribution to building and drafting a new constitution, which is so badly needed for this country.

We have embarked on this process in the spirit that exists in the country. Knowing that our time frame is limited, our contribution, like the contribution of everyone, is extremely important. I would like to put on the record that we in the Liberal Party of Ontario, on June 3, 1980 were wholehearted and active participants in this process.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously I would endorse all the very noble sentiments the honourable member has just uttered.

I would add another point, however; for some two years we in the New Democratic Party have sought this kind of committee in order that all members might have an input in shaping Ontario’s contribution to constitutional reform. We are delighted that once again common sense has finally triumphed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the help and assistance in drafting this resolution of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and the House leaders of the other two parties. I think this resolution setting up the select committee as a continuation of the week-long debate we had on the constitution here in this House, and of the spirit that surrounded it, represents a further step along the way as all of us strive to work towards a new constitution for Canada and to do what we can for Canadian unity.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Makarchuk moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry? All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Roy: We want to say a few things about it.

Mr. Speaker: You are not going to say them now.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the --

Mr. Speaker: I put the question, “Shall the motion carry?” There was no debate.

Mr. Roy: We said “nay.”

Mr. Speaker: That’s right

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the indulgence of the chair and of the House, some of us have comments to make on the legislation on second reading, and I think this is the proper time. If through a quirk of what happens in this assembly the time has gone by, I would ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because some of us have comments to make. I think a good number of members have something to say on the bill, and if this is the right time I would like to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have read Bill Pr26, and I have discussed with my colleagues the importance of this legislation. Especially because I have relied on my colleague the former leader of this party, I have no doubt about the importance of this bill and the impact that downtown redevelopment will have on the city of Brantford. There is no doubt about that I think there is unanimity on that point. The whole redevelopment is extremely important and is something the city of Brantford has been waiting for for a long time. We are certainly in support of that.

Regarding the sentiment of the bill, the intention of the bill is to circumvent the long cumbersome and at times tedious process of the Ontario Municipal Board. Again I can see merit to this approach. I have no qualms at all in saying that there are times when I see the whole OMB process as being ridiculous in certain situations. So I understand that.

Our other concern is the process of appeal from the OMB. The Ontario cabinet in 1980 is sometimes involved with appeals on issues that should never be before cabinet. I understand the frustration of the initiators and the people supporting this legislation. I understand and support that sentiment. But I think some of my colleagues here will have the same reservations as I have, that the approach taken by Bill Pr26 possibly is not the proper approach.

For instance, if I read the legislation correctly, I see section 2 doing away with Ontario Municipal Board approval in relation to borrowing. In other words, this whole process involves a large amount of public funds. Section 3(3) of the legislation does away with Ontario Municipal Board approval as far as any redevelopment plan is concerned. That is cause for concern. Finally, section 6 of the bill does away with Ontario Municipal Board approval in relation to parking. There is no doubt that by passing this legislation, this Legislature will be taking away this participation and all forms of hearings.

If I look at Hansard and read the debates that have taken place in the committee dealing with this bill, and if I look at some of the discussions which have gone on between my colleague the member for Brantford-Norfolk -- I always forget the riding --

Mr. Nixon: I obviously made a very big impression on him.

Mr. Roy: He did, Mr. Speaker. It was much easier when the riding was simply Brant.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you just call it that?

Mr. Roy: Yes. My colleague asked some questions of the solicitor for the city of Brantford, and I want to read pages 13, 14 and 15 of Hansard for May 21, 1980, where my colleague stated very clearly and succinctly what Bill Pr26 said. He asked, “Is it your impression that the passage of this bill will set aside all other obstacles, both for the financing and the approval of one plan?” Mr. Wilson answered, “I think it would set aside all the legal obstacles to proceeding ....”

Mr. Nixon went on to ask at page 15, “Just for further clarification, at least for myself and for people who have asked my view on this, I believe this bill would mean any further reference to the municipal board or any hearing officer other than an expropriation hearing for monetary considerations, would not be possible.” Mr. Wilson answered, “That is correct.”

The next question by Mr. Nixon: “I think we should have that clear. This bill is the final authority for the whole works.” Mr. Wilson answered. “That is right.”

There is no doubt that the passage of this bill will for all intents and purposes take away any legal obstacle; it will take away any right to a hearing and any right to an objection. Those who may have their rights affected, property or otherwise, will not be afforded the opportunity to come before a hearing, to come before a board, to object to what is going on in the redevelopment plan in the city of Brantford.

I have looked at Hansard of the proceedings that have taken place before the committee of this Legislature, and as I read briefly it became obvious that was not the forum for people who were objecting to the legislation. It was not the proper forum for people to bring forward their objections. My colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk), who is presenting the legislation, stated that we should stick to the principle of the bill, that this was not the proper forum for people to start talking about how their stores were going to be affected, the size, the zoning and that sort of thing. It was not the proper forum. The chairman of the committee at that time agreed with him.

I do not think I should take the time of the House to repeat these things, which are reported in Hansard, but the fact is that is what has taken place. The question has to be asked: What is it about this legislation, what is it about what is going on in Brantford that would compel the Legislature of Ontario to take away that right? What is it about this whole process? What is it about this redevelopment plan that would ask us to pass legislation to take away a right that has been established and accepted now for so many years?

3:50 p.m.

I have been asking people and the answer has to be that it is the people involved in the project. Campeau Corporation is one. It has an outstanding reputation in Ontario, and I can say without any hesitation the work Campeau has done has been good. The company originated in Ottawa, I understand. Apparently Campeau Corporation and T. Eaton Realty Company, another company which has long been associated with not only the history of Toronto, but also the history of Ontario and Canada, have set a deadline saying, “If something is not approved by a certain date, we are going to pack up and make investments elsewhere.”

We are being asked, and this is my reservation, to take away existing rights on the basis of expediency -- rights which for so many years, the Legislature of Ontario had established as being important; rights which were established not only in the Municipal Act and Planning Act, but also in the Ontario Municipal Board Act. If people wanted to have input or wanted to object to what was taking place in their community, if their property or other rights were being affected, those rights afforded them an opportunity to object.

We are taking those rights away in Bill Pr26, and I have strong reservations about that. I have strong reservations about creating that sort of precedent. It is the old dicturn that hard facts sometimes make bad law. I am reluctant to give support to this type of legislation.

I understand my colleagues who say it is important that we proceed with the redevelopment plan in downtown Brantford. I understand how difficult it has been. But I do not think we should agree that the Legislature of Ontario will be party to establishing this sort of precedent.

In my opinion, we would be creating a bad precedent. I can cite situations involving many of my colleagues who represent other areas of the province, and I can talk personally. There is a redevelopment plan for downtown Ottawa. Are we going to be asked at some time to do the same thing? Is there a plan for downtown Kingston? For downtown North Bay? Are we going to pass legislation for expediency’s sake that will take away a fundamental and basic right?

I say with the sincerity and faith that I can express this sentiment, that these are matters of great concern. Sometimes, given very difficult facts and given very difficult circumstances, it appears on the surface of things that we are acting reasonably and with justice. But by accepting the principle of Bill Pr26, we are establishing a precedent in the Legislature of Ontario in 1980 that we do not want to establish.

Some people have mentioned that similar legislation has been accepted for the city of Thunder Bay. However, I am told that there were no objections to the legislation. Even if people do not object, I have certain reservations about taking away rights that have been established under legislation.

As far as the redevelopment plan is concerned, it may be that this is the best thing, even if there were a hearing. It may be that it would be approved without any change. It may be that the plan itself just does not make sense and should not be allowed to proceed. Or it may be that the plan will require some changes or additions. But we will never know, because there will be no hearing, and those people affected will not be given an opportunity to speak.

We have not heard from the companies. We do not have anything on record; we do not have any agreements. Apparently the companies did not come before the committee. But I do not think the Legislature of Ontario should be subject to the pressure of large corporations coming along and saying, “If this is not approved by such and such a date, we are pulling out.” We should not bend to that. We should not establish a precedent of this nature for the basis of expediency.

I find it is passing strange, and I say this with sincerity to my colleague from Brantford -- he states that it is important; I know of his participation, and he wants to pass this legislation -- that, for instance, there has been some process of expediency, or at least some pressure put on to cut back the period of publicizing or advertising this legislation.

In other words, the urgency with which this has been brought forward by the member for Brantford has been obvious. I find it strange, and I do not know how his colleagues in the caucus react to this, because they are the people who have built a reputation of being what I consider to be the defenders of civil liberties, the defenders of people who may be affected by large projects. They are the people who, time and time again, stand in this Legislature and talk about the small, the poor and the oppressed and how they need defending.

This type of legislation is not for those people. It is not for people who have no money, who say they are going to go bankrupt or who do not have the funds to appear, day in and day out, before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is not for those people that we are bending the rules and setting a precedent. It is for people like the Campeau Corporation and the T. Eaton Realty Company -- big business.

I have strong reservations about that. They are the people who talk about the importance and sacredness of public participation, yet that party, as I understand it, will be supporting this.

Mr. MacDonald: Now I know why the member didn’t win the leadership.

Mr. Roy: Well, now I know why that member is no longer leader of that party.

I have great reservations about people who talk about public participation. They are the same party and the same caucus who, by this legislation, Bill Pr26, will be denying this public participation.

I find it ironic indeed that one member, on the very same day we are asked to pass Bill Pr26, was talking about a Magna Carta for the environment. How ironic that is.

Some people’s principles may be flexible; we have seen that before. But I want to say, and I am sure some of my colleagues agree with me, that we have strong reservations, no matter what the basis may be. We think that it is important for the city of Brantford to have this project. We think it is important to have people or corporations to participate in it but, in the process of doing that, we do not think it is a good precedent.

We do not think the Legislature of Ontario, on the basis of expediency, should deny people rights that have been established by this Legislature. This is why we have reservations and this is why I, as one member, cannot support this legislation.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

I would first like to declare that I do not have a downtown redevelopment plan in my riding and, while I could not rule out such a possibility, it is rather remote, because the largest town in my riding is just under 5,000 in population. I have no local political position either for or against such a development

As a member of the standing committee on general government for the past three years, I have found it a very interesting and educational experience because a great variety of problems and pieces of legislation come before that committee. I have found it a great education, but I have not found anything in that education, although perhaps other members have, that would make me an expert on city planning, an expert on whether the city of Brantford or any other city required a downtown redevelopment, whether they needed more retail space and what the social and economic considerations would be for the city.

4 p.m.

I found, at least as far as this particular member was concerned, that it was not an appropriate forum for discussion of this matter and that the people on the Ontario Municipal Board presumably would be far better qualified to have made such a decision.

I voted against the bill in committee, and I am speaking against it now. It is not a question of whether Brantford should have the development, but whether the Ontario Municipal Board should be bypassed and the standing committee on general government used for this purpose.

The reason advanced was that time was of the essence; that the Campeau Corporation and the T. Eaton Realty Company, to use language that is readily understood, would pick up their marbles and go home. The city did not present any hard evidence to support such a case. They presented no memoranda of understanding, giving dates that would be deadlines. They presented no leases or agreements towards leases that would have deadlines. So I failed to be persuaded that time was of the essence.

If there had been no objectors to the undertaking, I think one could have said it apparently did not meet with objections of people in the town and so probably there would be no reasons we should not support it. But there were some very serious objectors. They were not objections of a frivolous nature. They were from very serious people.

The counsel for one of the objectors objected very strongly to the treatment he received at the hands of the committee chairman. I am not seriously faulting the committee chairman, given the very short time we had to deal with this problem, but the counsel was not given the time to present his case.

He has written a letter to that effect, which I have in front of me. I want to read one paragraph from this letter, which is from the firm of Vaughan, Willms. He says: “I appeared before the standing committee on general government on Wednesday, May 21, 1980, but, in a shocking series of rulings, the chairman prevented me from making any meaningful defence of my client against this bill.”

It seems to me, following up on the remarks of the previous speaker, that we cannot, in good conscience, pass this bill in this Legislature.

Mr. Cureatz: You didn’t complain. You were on the committee.

Mr. Riddell: He voted against it.

Mr. McGuigan: I voted against it.

Mr. Cureatz: You should have voted against it in the committee.

Mr. McGuigan: I certainly voted against it. The member is well aware of that.

Mr. Riddell: Why doesn’t the member opposite stand up and speak on it?

Mr. Cureatz: I am tempted to; you will see when the vote comes.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I was not making a serious criticism of the chairman of the committee, although perhaps I should have.

Under the circumstances, with the very little time that was available, I felt we did not have the time to give this gentleman an opportunity. Surely he deserves the time. It is for that reason that I am very sympathetic to the position he has taken in his letter.

A further consideration, as far as I am concerned, is that I can agree to the taking of private property, when it is taken in the public interest for a road, a pipeline or any other purpose, but only after very extensive and serious public hearings. I have a great respect for public property, but I recognize the crown does have the right to take it. I cannot see that in the one day when we had so much evidence presented to us we had given the thought that needed to be given to it.

We are not even dealing with the taking of private property to be turned over to a public utility. We are talking of the taking of private property to be taken over by the city and then leased to a commercial interest. Perhaps they are not selling it to the other commercial interest, but at least they are leasing it and the use of it goes from one commercial owner to another commercial owner. I simply find that very hard to take.

I raise the question of other municipalities demanding the right to take the same route through the general government committee for whatever undertaking they have that they might see as very timely and having to be done immediately. It would appear it can be done so much more cheaply and much more effectively if this bill passes. It is undermining our present system. Perhaps the Ontario Municipal Board is not the most perfect system in the world. If it is not, I would suggest the remedy to that is to provide legislation to make more than one panel of that body or provide more facilities to speed up its operations. But I do not think bypassing it is the answer.

I cannot accept the argument that the delay would be fatal. I happen to have enough belief in a free enterprise system and in the economic system to believe that wherever there is money to be made people will invest in such enterprises. I cannot believe that in Canada, which is the greatest nation of savers in the world -- we put away about 10 per cent of our income each year in savings banks -- there is any shortage of funds.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Blind faith in the capitalistic system will save Brantford.

Mr. McGuigan: I have to say that I cannot believe the city of Brantford presented a case that convinced me or should convince other members of this Legislature.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to participate in the discussion concerning Bill Pr26, which is An Act respecting the City of Brantford and its proposed downtown redevelopment. As a member of the standing committee on general government, from the beginning I was involved in the discussion of this particular bill. There are several things that bothered me a great deal about this private bill.

One is that two weeks ago, when the bill was first to be heard before the committee, we were told by the member for Brantford that we had to hear the bill on that particular Wednesday without regard to the people involved in the downtown redevelopment who had to stay in Brantford for other reasons. What we were asked to do on that day was to disregard the rights of anyone who wanted to object or wanted to make a presentation on the reasons he wanted to object. However, the committee thought better of such a proposal and delayed the bill by one week so that small businessmen and individual citizens of the city of Brantford, if they wished, could come before our committee. I find it highly suspect that a member of the Legislature would want to take that particular right away from anyone. He should at least give the individuals the right to object.

4:10 p.m.

When the committee in its wisdom decided that we should delay the hearing of the bill for a week, I was frankly surprised at the number of objectors and their varied backgrounds. We had people from small business. We had one of the municipal representatives from Brantford. We had several concerned citizens from a wide range of life at our committee hearing objecting to this bill, Bill Pr26.

What they were objecting to was not the downtown redevelopment. It was that they were losing their right to go before the Ontario Municipal Board to get a full hearing. They were not objecting to the fact that Campeau and Eaton’s wanted to have this development occur in Brantford. They felt, as citizens of that city, that they have as much right to speak for Brantford as does Campeau and Eaton’s.

There is a second matter which bothered me greatly, and that is the way the New Democratic Party members were lined up like dominoes in the committee to ensure the vote would carry. I have never seen such substituting in any committee before as the substitution that was displayed by that party. They showed complete disregard of the fact that the objections were valid and were not being heard before the standing committee on general government.

As it was so eloquently pointed out by the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), we in the standing committee on general government did not have the time or the expertise to go thoroughly over the downtown redevelopment plan the way the Ontario Municipal Board would, can and should. For those reasons alone -- for only those reasons of ensuring the rights of those citizens are not taken away -- Bill Pr26 should not pass this Legislature.

It was also mentioned in the committee that the developers themselves, I believe, or some group on the pro side had cancelled an OMB hearing for this project which was already set up. Frankly, the argument that time was a factor does not warrant that this bill be passed in the House.

Campeau and Eaton’s are large corporations. They have developments in many cities across Ontario. They know what the regulations and the procedures are. They know that in developments such as this they must go before the OMB. Actually they are holding the municipal council hostage by telling them unless they back their proposal to the hilt -- even take it so far as to the Legislature of Ontario -- they will back out.

The only reason Campeau and Eaton’s would want to build a huge store in the city of Brantford is that they feel they can make a profit. They certainly would not have this plan before the city of Brantford if they thought they were going to lose money. If the plan is viable today for a profit motive, I assume it is going to be profitable six months or a year down the road.

I suggest it is the government which has the ultimate responsibility of things such as this on its shoulders. If what we need is a clear and immediate decision, why does it not ask the OMB to have a hearing immediately? I know there are many cancellations of OMB hearings, and possibly something could be done. Possibly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) could write a letter to the chairman of the OMB stressing the urgency of the matter and have them hold a full and complete hearing.

At least in that way we would have all of the objectors heard because frankly I was embarrassed by the activities of the committee -- not of any particular member, but of the time constraint that we had. We had delegations before us, and the first thing the chairman had to say -- not because he wanted to, but because he was forced into it -- was that the committee would like to restrict their comments to 10 or 20 minutes.

That is no way to be heard. I know the chairman did not want to do that, and I know the members of the committee did not want to do that. The standing committee on general government is not the place in which to have this kind of bill pass. We are not experts in downtown redevelopment and we are not experts in taking testimony from witnesses such as those. I can assure members that the solicitor for one of the delegations that appeared before us probably could have made representation for the better part of half a day, but he was restricted to 20 minutes.

If the T. Eaton Realty Company and Campeau Corporation wish to build a downtown centre in the city of Brantford, if they wish to construct a mall so that their corporations can profit, then I say they should go by the regulations. They should appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

There is another important matter I would like to bring up. I represent 12 municipalities. Some of those municipalities may have already undergone downtown redevelopment; some of them may want downtown redevelopment; and some of them may have to go to the OMB for other reasons. This precedent-setting bill is going to encourage all of the municipalities to seek out their local MPPs and ask them to introduce private bills such as this so that they can avoid going to the OMB as a matter of expediency.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, to the chairman of the standing committee on general government and to all its members that we are not the committee to hear such matters. We should not set the precedent whereby we handle private bills for municipalities which we may represent in order to circumvent the power and authority of the OMB. If we do not like the way the OMB is operating or the time it takes to hear a case, let us appoint more commissioners and let us snake the changes that are necessary, but let us not use the standing committee on general government as a tool to circumvent the OMB.

With those few comments, I think all members should think clearly and seriously before they vote to support this particular bill.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, when you have an opportunity later on, I wonder whether you would review the remarks made by the diminutive member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). As I heard him, he stated in his remarks that the actions and activities of the member for Brantford before the standing committee on general government were highly suspect. Would you look at Hansard when it is printed and consider whether that breached the privileges of the member for Brantford?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening very carefully to the member for Essex South, and I did not detect that he was accusing any member of this assembly of an impropriety. That was the impression I got. Perhaps the member can confirm that.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if I said anything in my remarks to which the member for Brantford or any member of his party would take offence, I would withdraw those remarks. At the same time, if the particular member who just rose wants to make comments as to my particular height, that in no way offends me.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to comment on the bill, but I am going to make a few short comments. There are a number of members from this House on that committee who voted in favour of that bill and a lesser number who voted in opposition to it. I felt I was betwixt and between on that particular issue. Although members of this House have drawn the attention of the Speaker to the fact that this bill perhaps should not have come before the committee, nevertheless it was there and it was something we had to deal with.

4:20 p.m.

In being there and hearing the case for Brantford, which has been seeking redevelopment of the downtown core area for a number of years without any great amount of success, I feel this particular fact had to be taken into consideration. They have now had a commitment by two large developers to go into Brantford and spend a considerable amount of money to give that core some kind of redevelopment.

As we know, across this province and across North America, there are a lot of municipalities whose downtown areas have suffered from decay. New plazas have been built on the outer perimeters of those municipalities and they have drawn the attention and the money from the citizens. As a result the smaller businesses have suffered.

I know that in my own municipality as well as in a number of other municipalities across this province, developments have gone in and given an impetus, acted as a catalyst to draw other money to the downtown areas and therefore have given that particular core area a new lease on life. That happened in Waterloo back in the late 1950s. It has happened in Kitchener, Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor. It is happening in smaller municipalities. It happened in Ottawa. This has been very important to give a new lease on life to the downtown areas.

Brantford has been seeking this for at least 15 years. There has been a lot of effort by the council, and in this case the council almost unanimously supported this particular project. The other important thing which bears on my decision to support the bill is the fact that the Ontario Municipal Board had been very slow in reacting to requests for hearings on this matter. As regular procedure with the Ontario Municipal Board, we know it takes about six months to establish a date for a hearing and then another three months or so actually to get the hearing. That is, as a general rule. If one has a certain amount of clout, as I know you have, Mr. Speaker, or as other members of this Legislature have, they can call up the chairman and say, “Look, will you act a little more quickly on this particular project and have a hearing maybe within a few months?”

I do not think 25 or 30 commissioners of the Ontario Municipal Board are a sufficient number to hear the various hearings. As my colleague from Essex South has pointed out, they should appoint more people to the Ontario Municipal Board. But I do not have that power, nor does the Legislature. The executive council has that power, and it refuses to appoint more people to the Ontario Municipal Board to expedite the various cases. They can find money for all kinds of ads. They can spend money frivolously across the province for various things. But they cannot pay another 10 commissioners or five commissioners the additional money to update the various hearings.

It is like anything that you do, Mr. Speaker, as far as correspondence or anything else is concerned; one can always be six months behind. That happens to be the policy of the Ontario Municipal Board. Why the devil they do not appoint half a dozen more people to be updated as far as hearings are concerned, I do not know, but they simply do not do it. I think the people across the chamber are responsible for it. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) is there, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is there, backbenchers are there; they could draw it to the attention of the cabinet to appoint more people, but they refuse to do it for some odd reason and things are delayed. That is why this matter was before this committee and that is why the various members had the dilemma they had with respect to trying to deal with this very important case.

Had we been assured that the OMB could deal with that matter within a month or two, and the work was done as far as preparing the briefs -- and I am sure the work was done by the various lawyers to make the presentations -- then this whole matter could have been dealt with by the end of July or August. There was a sincere feeling by most members of the committee that this thing was going to drag on for six months to a year. In fact, the evidence before the committee showed us that it could drag on for up to two years.

For the sake of Brantford, I felt this development should go ahead. I am a great believer in local autonomy, and the council in their wisdom felt, after many, many years of hard work, of trying to get development to the downtown area, that they were finally successful in attracting a very good development and one that would act as a catalyst for the Brantford downtown area.

With those remarks, I want to indicate that I am going to support this bill. I know I am in opposition to some of my colleagues, and I regret that; nevertheless, I feel very strongly that Brantford wants and needs the development, and I am going to support this bill

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. I am a member of the committee that considered it. I had the advantage, as the other 11 members did, of hearing the pros and cons put forward, and the more I heard the presentations by both parties, the more I was concerned about the principle of this bill.

In my view, there is no disputing what is happening in downtown Brantford: the aspirations of the council and of the people of Brantford to redevelop their downtown in a legitimate manner. I am concerned about the ramifications of passing this bill.

I have had many years of municipal experience, as have many members here. We have dealt with municipalities, with the Ontario Municipal Board, and with developers. Out of that experience two paramount things have risen. First, virtually nobody in the development business likes to submit his ideas and plans to the scrutiny of the public process, particularly as it relates to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Second, I think it is fair to say that people involved directly in the development business are in the business for one reason -- and I do not dispute that reason -- to make a profit. If they do not snake a profit, they are not going to stay in business. We do not think profit is a dirty word on this side of the House, and neither do many members opposite. It is for some, but not for me. That is the other thing I learned in my many years of municipal experience.

The principle of this bill violates both those concepts to the nth degree. We are trying, through this piece of legislation to go against the wishes of a relatively small minority, and I acknowledge that, but it is apparently a significant and influential minority in terms of the business community of Brantford. We are not giving them the opportunity to go through the due process that virtually every other development must go through: the scrutiny of the Ontario Municipal Board. I will not argue about the pros and cons of the OMB and the time element and so on. I have some problems with that operation as well. But if we say “yea” to circumventing that process on this bill, how are we going to say anything different when a bill comes forward from the XYZ municipality next week, the ABC municipality the month after and the DEF municipality the month after that, for the same valid and legitimate reasons?

I find it particularly intriguing that suddenly we have two very influential and high-profile developers who appear to have a great liking for the New Democratic Party. I find that very difficult to understand, although refreshing to a great degree, but nevertheless puzzling, particularly when the mover of this bill -- and I appreciate that he represents this constituency -- literally forced an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in a jurisdiction which he did not represent, but which was not too far removed from the one he did represent, at great expense to that municipality and to the participants.

4:30 p.m.

All of a sudden this same member is in support of a piece of legislation that would take away the democratic right of the people of downtown Brantford and others who may feel they have some input to make to the Ontario Municipal Board and to the process, by trying to circumvent the process that has been there and stood the test of time. I find that very difficult to comprehend, to the point where it bothers me. If the bill had come forward from some other part of the House, it might not be as suspect, but under the circumstances I am afraid that it is.

Getting back to the proponents, we all know the reason it is being put forward. If it is not passed by a certain time, the developers are going to pick up their marbles and go home. That comes back to the second point, from my previous experience in the municipal sector. If this is, as it is purported to be -- and, as a matter of fact, I do not challenge that it probably is -- a good redevelopment for the downtown community of Brantford, then I am quite sure -- in a few months, or even a year, and we have many suggestions that it would not have to be that long -- it would stand the test of time.

The particular people involved in the development, namely, Eaton’s and Campeau, would not pick up their marbles and go home. They would present their case in the due process, receive approval or otherwise in the due process, and if there is a profit to be made in the proposal, I am sure they will be there to make it at the end, just as well as they would at the beginning.

The other part of that same process that disturbs me is the information that was drawn to the committee’s attention both during and since the representations last week and the week before. There has been apparently, on at least two occasions earlier this year, time set aside by the OMB to have hearings relative to proposals for the redevelopment of downtown Brantford, and both have been postponed at the applicant’s choosing.

Mr. Nixon: The developers withdrew. That is their experience.

Mr. Makarchuk: They cannot have a hearing on nothing.

Mr. Ashe: The players are changing as we go along, but the project is basically the same. I suggest that somewhere along the line, probably even if the players had changed but they were still talking about the same proposal, it would not have been too difficult to change slightly what the OMB was prepared to hear. Just changing the proponents would not be an insurmountable problem.

The most important reason that I cannot support the bill, besides all the other areas I mentioned, is the sincere and deep concern I have -- and I will be parochial for a moment -- about going back into Pickering, Ajax, or Whitby, knowing they are in similar situations with their development proposals. Granted these are not usually redevelopment proposals, with one exception that could happen and is happening in downtown Whitby. How could I go back to them and in all conscience point out the logical, reasonable, rational and democratic process they and the proponents of development and redevelopment have to go through, when this Legislature supported by my vote -- but it will not be -- could agree to the circumvention this piece of legislation is trying to accomplish? In all conscience, I cannot do that, end I hope sufficient members of this Legislature feel the same.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, having at the same time the highest regard for the objections expressed by my colleagues and by the honourable member who just took his place. I want to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have the honour of representing any of the citizens of Brantford. My constituency of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, however, surrounds the city. It is the hole in my democratic doughnut.

The city of Brantford, however, is my town. We read the Brantford Expositor, we listen to radio station CKPC, I attended school there, my kids went to school thereat least for a period of time -- and I have always considered myself deeply involved with its affairs.

For more than a decade the downtown area of Brantford has been deteriorating. We are not here to lay blame nor to assess blame in this regard, since many cities have experienced this. But I hope I am not too far out of line nor too unwise in saying the downtown area of Brantford is as far deteriorated as any other city in this province. There are many stores that are closed. Many buildings have burned, including the historic Kerby House Hotel, which was 150 years old. A couple of other hotels have burned --

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s where Sir John A. started his campaign.

Mr. Nixon: That is of more interest to him than it is to me.

We also have plenty of parking lots. There were specific municipal decisions which, in my view, even hastened this decay and deterioration. The council in its wisdom many years ago decided to tear down the historic city hall, a very fine structure, and it was torn down. The square around it, which had the farmers’ market, was paved over. The market, operated by local farmers, was moved elsewhere and we have had that nice square of asphalt ever since, beautifully marked with two hot dog stands -- actually potato-chip stands -- one on either corner, which was the main prosperity of that formerly interesting block.

The city itself built a fine new city hall -- a beautiful building, in my view; I have no complaint with that at all. But the idea was that by clearing out this centre square, we would be able to get some retail developer to come in and begin the rejuvenation of the downtown area. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

There have been a number of near commitments from developers, and in two or three instances the commitment was close enough for the city to apply for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing having to do with the development that private enterprise wanted to undertake. The city very properly undertook the responsibility to assist with the assembly of land and to provide parking. That is what they are already prepared to do. But in both the instances that have been referred to, where municipal board appointments had been established, the developers withdrew because of lack of interest, lack of commitment or lack of capital for the kind of development they had in mind.

It hurts me to say so, but I would say that the development of downtown Brantford is not the greatest profit-making plum that was ever thought of and until, for some reason, Eaton’s and Campeau came along with a large amount of capital and a tremendous desire to undertake that development, there was just no one who was particularly interested in a program that was going to get the approval of the local council and be properly funded.

Frankly, I was very disappointed indeed that one local developer, by the name of Homestead, which had taken a substantial initiative and which did have the support of the local council, was not included in the final plan. It turned out that Homestead, which had assembled a good deal of land and had the advantage of this local position, was advised by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), or at least by his officials and by the officials of the city of Brantford, to get a major retail outlet -- I don’t know what they call them -- or an anchor outlet to give some heft and substance to the business alternatives that would be developed there.

Campeau came in and there was great rejoicing. Campeau brought Eaton’s. Campeau said, “We want half.” Eaton’s said, “We want half.” Which meant the local developer did not have any part of the pie left. I do not understand that. I do not associate with the big developers; I have never had a chance to do so. The Eaton family has never been associated with any endeavours that I have been associated with, and I do not have any great loyalty to the Eatons, the Bassetts and the crowd that run around Toronto and Ontario parlaying their fortunes into whatever else they can think of.

Campeau is a well-known supporter of governments, and there is nothing the matter with that, because they have done that, I suppose, for a good long time. I have no sympathy in that respect with either of the developers, except they have shown an interest in the development of Brantford to the extent that they are going to make a commitment of $12 million.

This has led the Minister of Housing to change his position slightly. In the downtown redevelopment program he had made a rather reluctant commitment of something less than $3 million with a specific time limit on it, and as the developers came --

Mr. Makarchuk: It was $13.4 million.

Mr. Nixon: It was $13.4 million from the major developers, I am informed by my close friend and associate from Brantford, without whose advice I rarely make a comment here in the Legislature.

4:40 p.m.

When it became apparent that major developers, particularly Campeau and Eaton’s, were going to get involved the Minister of Housing all of a sudden saw the light. More than $6 million was made available to Brantford, for which we are deeply grateful, and the time limit was extended from three months to six months, I believe. It looked as if the government was very interested in this. Certainly the city council was interested in it. After all these years of deterioration and a lowering of assessment, almost to the point of despair, we could see a real opportunity for development there.

Under the normal Ontario Municipal Board procedures, two appointments had been made, but before they got to the meeting the developer had to withdraw for some reason or another. So the city came to the conclusion that under the normal rules and regulations and laws applying in this province, the downtown development might never come about

We have a time-honoured procedure in this jurisdiction that whenever general legislation does not fit the needs of a corporation, municipal or otherwise, they have access to private legislation to remedy something that does not work in general legislation. We have before us a private bill that is designed to remedy these problems that I have very briefly described.

There is a lot more to it, obviously. I have just been an outside observer, not involved in the business of the council during these years of deterioration, the way the member for Brantford was.

We in this House should not be carried away by our commitment to the application of general legislation when there is a clear alternative -- private legislation -- for giving remedy to special cases. The Legislature deals with these private bills every session, and this happens to be one of those.

The city council, with the best advice and best judgement they have, democratically elected and committed to the welfare of their own city, felt they should ask for this legislation.

The people in the standing committee on general government who feel the hearings were inadequate, in my view, are under the impression that those hearings were to replace an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The principle of the bill was to dispense with the Ontario Municipal Board hearing and allow the city of Brantford to proceed with the plan as laid out. It has specifically referred to the plan involving Eaton’s and Campeau, and there is a booklet of information about the bylaws and zoning that is associated with it.

There are many aspects of this plan that I do not like. Mr. Ben Kanter, one of the major objectors who came to the committee, has put forward his objections very strongly, locally and before the committee, through his lawyer. The Ferras brothers put forward their own objection. They had checked with the city about a year ago to say, “We want to build a new store, the OK Shoe Store, right on the main square of town.” It is a family that has been in business for 50 years. They finally got the capital together to buy their land, build their own building and move the OK Shoe Store to this new location.

It is a very prosperous store indeed, and the Ferras brothers were very influential representatives at the committee meeting. They said: “We got approval from the city about a year ago. We’ve put up this building. Here we are doing business, and now these outside interests come in and tell the city, ‘We want that land,’ and the city says, ‘Yes, we will expropriate it for you.’”

I do not blame them for objecting, but under our system they are going to be paid for all of that. In addition to that, I believe the city has a responsibility to see that these businessmen are properly relocated so that they can do business in a profitable and expanding way, as they were when they faced this situation.

Under those circumstances, frankly, I gather that the Ferrases and others were quite pleased with amendments that were put in the bill at committee and which are going to be dealt with by the Legislature if the bill passes second reading later.

The other thing that concerned me was whether the city had the financial capacity to undertake the debt associated with this development. The main reason for Ontario Municipal Board hearings, in my view, is not to decide whether a grocery store ought to have 30,000 square feet or 60,000 square feet, but whether the municipality that is asking for the right to borrow money has the fiscal, economic and financial capacity to borrow the money and pay it off properly.

We were assured, at my questioning in the committee, both by the city treasurer and by the representatives of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, that in the opinion of the experts the financial capacity was there. Any approval for this bill is not going to put the local taxpayers or the credit of the municipality at risk.

In closing, I say again, I have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed by my colleague. I am very close to the situation, and I believe that general legislation is not in the best interests of what the city of Brantford requires with its experience over more than a decade. It is their considered view if they do not get the relief provided by this private bill that the developers who are prepared to go ahead this fall will not go ahead. Whatever their motives are, how bad or good those motives, it is difficult for us to judge. But if in our wisdom we decide we are not going to give them the relief and if Brantford loses this opportunity for development, it will be a very serious matter for the city.

I do not believe I am any wiser than the representatives of the city of Brantford. They might very well be here in my place or even in the place of the member for Brantford in the future. Who knows? They are elected to make certain decisions, which they have done. They have asked us for additional special powers. As far as a precedent is concerned, these bills are judged -- they always have been and always should be -- on the merits of the bills that are presented.

In my view, the Brantford bill is meritorious in regard to its requirements at this time. For that reason, I intend to vote for it and I urge the honourable members to support it as well.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly upon this bill, although it had not been originally my intention to do so.

Mr. Samis: Is this a trial run?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps. I want to address some comments on what I regard as the disturbing feature of what I think is the principle of this bill. I must say the very persuasive arguments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk make it difficult for me, not being nearly as familiar as he or the member for Brantford is with the specific circumstances locally. I accept his argument that the community for a number of years has been attempting to get such a project launched in that community.

I must say I am very supportive of the program of revitalization by the Ministry of Housing in co-operation with the municipalities of this province. In a number of situations, it has been demonstrated to have been a tremendous boost to a community with a decaying city core.

Bearing in mind the concerns that have been registered by those members supporting it, I think we have to be very careful whatever may be the pressures at a given point in time, of allowing ourselves as legislators to act, albeit at the request of a municipality, in such a way as to circumvent what would normally be the due process to which the citizens of a community had access at a time when the municipality was embarking upon a major scheme like this.

I think it has to be borne in mind that the taxpayers of that community would be facing a very substantial financial commitment, which I presume would be the subject of the hearing before the OMB. It is important that the taxpayers under those circumstances do have an opportunity to register their concerns and their support or opposition before the OMB. There may well have been other bills like this in the past that I am not familiar with which have had that effect. I find it genuinely disturbing, under circumstances like this, when the pressures exist for speedy development, that we would act in such a way as to suspend the rights of those municipal taxpayers to register their concerns.

4:50 p.m.

I say this with some parochial concern as well, since my own constituency has a similar proposal under consideration at the present time. I would like it to be clearly understood by my constituents and by the developers, one of whom is one of the two involved in this proposal, that on the basis of what I have heard this afternoon, I feel that if they are going to bring forward such proposals they must do so with the full knowledge that the citizens of that community ought to be able to have at their disposal all of the normal rights or recourse for hearing their concerns that are laid out in the laws of this province. They ought not to anticipate that the Legislature of this province will move in and abrogate their rights under time pressure, and maybe legitimate time pressure, brought to bear by the developers involved.

I do not wish to belabour this point, but I think the honourable members ought to consider very carefully the implications of such an act. As one of the members opposite said, we might well find ourselves with a flood of such requests coming before the Legislature. I do not mean to suggest any mistrust for developers but, on the other hand, if this is seen as an avenue for dispensing with the Ontario Municipal Board hearings, then I am sure there may well be a lot of developers who will have experienced great time pressures which will make it necessary for them to go to the municipalities and say:

“We only have a few months to go and, if it is not approved by then, it is dead. What we want you to do is go to the Ontario Legislature and get a private bill.” I do not think we want that to happen. I think the principle could well be extended much more broadly to other areas where pressure might exist under circumstances quite different from this. To move in such a way is to abrogate the rights of citizens to the normal recourse for hearing their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do intend to oppose this bill.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Are you speaking on behalf of the government?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am speaking as a private member.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed in this House about how incredibly legalistic people can be, or become, who are not lawyers, and even some who are, about proposed legislation before this House. I would think they would have a certain pragmatic stance, some flexibility.

If anyone has any knowledge, even fairly superficial knowledge as I have, of the Brantford situation as has been well set out by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and by my own colleague, to whom I have listened over a period of time on this particular problem, I do not know how one could resist. There seems to be something sacrosanct about precedent. As the previous member said, each of these issues coming under private bills will have to be dealt with on its merits. There is nothing particularly winning about the notion of precedent or nonprecedent.

If it is known that it is a question of merit, the situation in Brantford is very unique indeed. The period of time in which they have been trying to do it, the quality of the deterioration, the appearance on the scene of developers who are willing to go forward -- the whole complex or bundle of facts would constitute this as a unique case, which should be handled adroitly and uniquely in terms of the exigencies involved. To do anything else is to do a disservice to the people of that particular area.

The answer, of course, is for the government to pull up its socks in this area and get the municipal board functioning on some kind of schedule that is remotely capable of handling the cases that come before it and to know that a period of six months is almost certain to elapse.

Sometimes I am rather grateful that the municipal board is so tardy with a number of things, in order on occasion to affect one’s own purposes with respect to local developments. On the other hand, members of this House should give cognizance to and bow to a matter which I am certain has the overwhelming support of the people of the area and certainly of its council.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate I will support this bill when it comes to a vote, and I think it is going to come to a vote this afternoon.

Let us understand what this bill is about. The reason that Brantford would have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board is not for approval of the plans, not for approval of the project and not for approval of the expropriations. The only reason the city of Brantford, in the normal course of events, would have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board is to approve $1.8 million in debentures. There is no rezoning involved in this situation. All they have to go for is debenturing. If the city of Brantford could somehow come up with 1.8 million cash out of this year’s taxation, there would be no requirement for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

We heard some objections in committee, and I was there, at least at one of the meetings.

Mr. Nixon: Will you permit a question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will permit one. I do not know if I can answer it.

Mr. Nixon: It concerns me that the minister is taking this position; the parliamentary assistant presumably is speaking for the Minister of Housing, who is not present. Would he clarify what he has just said that it is only for debenture?

It is true that section 2 of the bill deals with allowing the city of Brantford to borrow $1.8 million, but the rest of the bill refers specifically to the planned rezoning and the implementation of the agreement between Campeau and T. Eaton Realty. I would ask the minister why those sections are there if what he says is correct. We brought out directly at the committee that any opposition to any rezoning or planning decision which could normally be appealed to the municipal board could not be appealed if this bill carried.

Mr. Rotenberg: I am not speaking for the Minister of Housing, but my understanding was that no rezoning was required. If I am mistaken, maybe the member for Brantford can indicate the mistake to me.

Mr. Roy: But what does the bill say?

Mr. Rotenberg: Be that as it may, there has been objection. The objection before the committee to the project has been from those who are to be expropriated. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk presented the case very well, and he indicated the hearing was not to be a substitute for the Ontario Municipal Board either for the purpose of any future planning or for the purpose of debenturing. I would confirm what the member has said.

Speaking for a moment for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, our finance people have checked out the financial capability of the city of Brantford and are quite satisfied that on that point there is no problem. I am quite satisfied that if the project went to the Ontario Municipal Board solely on a financial matter, there would be no problem. The problem is, when one goes to the Ontario Municipal Board for debenturing, one gets into all the other problems as well.

There are two matters of principle here. One is, should everybody have their day in court? Those who object to expropriation had their day in court, not before the committee, but before a hearing of necessity, which is another way of finding out whether these matters should go forward. It is a question of there being a day in court for a minority and whether this development should go forward.

Although we do not give municipalities total autonomy, we do have to recognize the fact that the city of Brantford and their council want to go forward with this and are overriding the minority of their citizens.

There are a few people this afternoon who have been developer-bashing, which is a great sport around here and it is coming from a different location than normal. But the point has to be stressed that if this bill is rejected, we are told -- and we have no reason to believe otherwise -- this development proposal will go down the drain.

The big losers will not be Campeau and Eaton’s, because they have all kinds of municipalities around the province to go to and develop in. This is not one of their major projects. Neither Campeau nor Eaton’s will rise or fall if this bill does or does not go forward. Sure, Campeau and Eaton’s are going to make a profit, but they are doing far more of a favour to Brantford by developing than Brantford is doing for them by allowing them to come in and develop.

If this bill does not go forward, the real losers will not be the developers; the real losers will be taxpayers of the city of Brantford. They will lose yet another opportunity to have their downtown developed, and another may or may not come along.

Two amendments were brought forward at the standing committee on general government, in light of the objections, which those who have the revised bill should take note of. One amendment was that if after the expropriations go forward and for some reason the project does not go forward, those who are expropriated get their properties back. Second, and equally important, those whose businesses are expropriated have to be offered accommodation in the new location at terms no more severe than other tenants’. Therefore, those who are expropriated in effect have a right to come into the new project.

That second amendment, which was drawn rather hastily in the committee, does not quite fulfil the wishes of the committee. If this bill does carry on second reading, I will ask that it go to committee of the whole to make what I think is a technical amendment in order to do what the committee really has to do. In summary, I will support this bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in this fascinating debate. I am fascinated by a number of the comments that have been made this afternoon but particularly by the love affair which some members of the Liberal Party seem to have suddenly found with the Ontario Municipal Board.

In my view, the second biggest problem in planning in Ontario today is the Ontario Municipal Board. The biggest problem is the fad that there is a final appeal to the Ontario cabinet, but the second biggest problem is the Ontario Municipal Board’s procedures for dealing with private citizens who have grievances, who have complaints, who are concerned about the planning of financial decisions of their municipal council.

Hon. Mr. Norton: So you believe in swift justice with no hearings, is that it?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could catch some of the interjections from the Minister of Community and Social Services; I think they would be fascinating.

Members talked about the right of the little people to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board. The big problem is that little people do not get a proper and fair hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. The people who get a fair hearing before the board are the lawyers, and the lawyers are sending bills to their clients in the hundreds and thousands of dollars to pay for those proceedings which in the overwhelming majority of cases do their clients no good at all.

An example of this was raised by one of the Liberal members today when he quoted from a letter from a lawyer, Mr. Vaughan, who sent a letter to all members of this House. I read that letter with great care and some concern. I want to suggest that it is an example of the kind of problem we have with the Ontario Municipal Board system as it exists. I want to refer to three tiny parts of that letter. On the first page, Mr. Vaughan talks about a shocking series of rulings from the chairman of the standing committee on general government. I read the rest of the letter and nowhere in that letter does he justify that statement. I thought to myself, perhaps it is obvious; perhaps those who were at the committee would all agree that there was a shocking series of rulings.

I went back to the transcript of the committee and read that transcript. Nowhere could I find a ruling with which I had any disagreement at all. I want to suggest that Mr. Vaughan’s allegation of a shocking series of rulings from the committee chairman is completely and utterly unsubstantiated and an insult to the chairman of that committee.

On page five of Mr. Vaughan’s letter, he has a heading, “Is this a proper private member’s bill?” It is underlined. Of course, it is not a proper private member’s bill, because it is not a private member’s bill. That is an indication of how much lawyers in this province are ripping off their clients for things about which they know nothing.

On page six of the letter, the second paragraph says: “Of course the bill proposes to amend public acts.” We know what is meant by an amendment to the act. This bill that is before us now, Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Brantford, does not amend any public act in this province. It seeks to waive the provisions of a public act in one specific instance. That is clearly not an amendment. I am not a lawyer, but any lawyer who is licensed to practise in this province should not use sloppy language like this and certainly should not be allowed to charge his clients for that kind of sloppy language.

Several of the earlier speakers from both the government party and the Liberal Party have said that we may see more of these, that this is a dangerous precedent. I agree; we may indeed see more of these. I am concerned that a respectable Canadian private corporation like the T. Eaton Company, which most people think of as being close to motherhood, has been involved in bringing this kind of thing before us today. I want to suggest that the fact that is the case is a further indication of how disastrous the present Planning Act and the present procedures under the Planning Act have become.

I talk to developers. I talk to realtors. I do not always agree with them; in fact, I disagree with them more than I agree with them. But I talk to anybody who wants to talk to me -- my constituents, small businessmen and developers. They all tell me that we have a serious problem with the Planning Act. They all tell me that development in this province is too tied up with red tape and that there is too much bureaucracy.

We cannot get planning done properly. We cannot get development to proceed in an orderly and proper fashion in this province because of the terrible system we have. The fact that Eaton’s is before us with this bill is an indication of that. I want to suggest that if other municipalities come forward with this kind of approach, we will have to look at them on the same basis. We will have to consider their proposals on their individual merits until such time as there is an amendment to the Planning Act which cuts through all the red tape, puts the responsibility where it should be and can assure the citizens of this province that planning will be dealt with in a proper, orderly, responsive fashion.

I am not scared of getting more bills like this. If municipal councils want to take their chances with this approach, then good luck to them. I honestly suspect they are asking for trouble if they do it too often. But until we see a new Planning Act in place, it is an approach that is available to them and one that should be used.

5:10 p.m.

We have looked at the various aspects of this bill. We have looked very seriously at what it means for the city of Brantford and what it means in general for the economic growth of that region. The city of Brantford is a great community. It is only 30 miles from where I live. It is a place that many members of my constituency visit quite often for shopping trips and for various reasons.

It is appropriate that Brantford as a community be allowed to develop. It is appropriate that Brantford be allowed to proceed with a downtown redevelopment scheme. They have tried very sincerely over the years, they are trying once more, and they appear to be a little closer this time than they have ever been before. I would hate to have to carry the burden of believing that because this Legislature would not deal with this bill the city of Brantford and the surrounding suburban and rural areas had to go without downtown redevelopment because this government refused to bring in amendments to the Planning Act that cut through the red tape, that cut through the silly nonsense and that put more responsibility on local councils with proper provision for public input at that level and a proper, smooth, simple appeal procedure that did not mean citizens had to spend large amounts of money on legal bills in order to be represented before a body that would probably take very little or no notice of their concerns in any event.

If one looked back through the hearings of the OMB, one should think about how many times the OMB has varied the decision of a local council on matters of significance. That in itself is an indication that local councils can act responsibly, but it is also an indication that the OMB is not dealing properly with the matters that come before it in those cases where local councils have ignored citizens’ complaints.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t think the OMB is part of the principle of the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: The OMB is mentioned in this bill. The principle of the bill is to bypass the OMB and all the people this government has put on to the OMB who are certainly not members of the New Democratic Party. Enough said about that issue.

We have weighed both sides of this bill. I personally am supporting it and I believe that the majority, if not 100 per cent, of the members of this caucus will be supporting the bill because it is necessary that we cut through the red tape that is bogging down the planning process here in Ontario. We look forward to dealing with more bills like this unless the government gets on with dealing with the Planning Act in a proper and appropriate manner. Let us have the Planning Act draft in committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I see legislation like this and as much as I see the need to redevelop the downtown core of Brantford -- and I appreciate how sincere the Campeau-Eaton proposal may be -- I wonder what jurisdiction we are in when I look at it in the context of private property and the rights of the individual in society today in Canada.

On too many occasions in this past decade I have seen the property rights of individuals trampled under various items of legislation, possibly in the public good, but certainly with very little consideration for the owner of that property. I look at the parkway belt, I look at the Niagara Escarpment Commission situation and I look at various conservation authorities. While in a general sense it may be of great benefit to people who may use these facilities, on far too many occasions the property rights of the individual are submerged and ignored.

It was not that long ago I read an account in the Hamilton Spectator of almost a seizure of property by Dofasco. I think the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) or the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) might agree with me when they look at the conduct of everyone involved in that particular dispute.

I look at the acquisition of a small business like that small bicycle shop on Ottawa Street North, which I guess has now been expropriated for the purposes of Dofasco, and again I wonder where is equity, where is fairness in the province? It is certainly not as obvious as I would like to see it.

If we pass this legislation we may be setting a precedent for people to make an end run around the Ontario Municipal Board. In a sense, I would almost agree with the member for Wentworth. The overwhelming problem has to be the process itself, which is what we must address ourselves to, rather than a piecemeal approach where the rights and freedoms of people will be ignored. Quite frankly, I find some inconsistency on the part of some members of the New Democratic Party who talk about support for small business, yet in a cursory manner cast their rights and privileges aside with legislation such as this.

I wish the Campeau-Eaton development could go ahead, but if the legislation does not carry I hope they will entertain this proposal and go through the proper procedures as outlined in Ontario law so that the development would proceed at some point. But I think we are taking a very dangerous step here today if we accept such legislation as this.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I think the important thing for members to realize is that there is nothing illegal or incredibly bizarre about the fact that a municipality in Ontario should address the Legislature for relief from a specific problem in a specific situation in their municipality.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk very carefully and very clearly gave an explanation of the situation in Brantford that has resulted in that municipality requesting this relief from general legislation. I think the members of his caucus who have expressed views quite different from his might reflect on his comments in the few moments before the vote, because I think he put the situation quite clearly and quite well.

We have to understand that is what private bills in this assembly are about. Indeed, from time to time we may find and will find private bills like this, perhaps not on a question of downtown redevelopment, but on other questions where municipalities or corporations in the province seek something different from the application of general legislation. That is a part of parliamentary democracy in the province. I do not think people need to get apoplectic about the very fact of considering it.

Also important is the tone taken in this debate by my colleague from Wentworth in regard to the Ontario Municipal Board. That is a large part of the problem. I do not see as obviously as the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), which he represents when he is not being Minister of Community and Social Services --

Mr. Makarchuk: He might be forced to take a stand on his own downtown redevelopment.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I notice he was very clear to make that distinction, that it is a question of civil liberties.

The example raised by the member for Wentworth North, in trying to explain about the OMB is interesting. In the north end of Hamilton, and more specifically in the northern part of Hamilton Centre, we have had a great deal of experience in fighting this sort of joint alliance in our municipality between the pro-development group, the major industries and the Liberal and Conservative majority on our city and regional councils.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Your party’s stand on this bill really raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of your apparent or professed commitment to the little person having access to appropriate hearing. Are you just doing this out of expediency?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Let me just tell the minister, I think that is a very good example, what happened there. The grand alliance swept through.

Big companies like Dofasco and Stelco, in alliance with the regional and city council, dragging along behind them the provincial government, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Expropriation Board and everybody else they could find, paid no attention to what was best for the average citizen in that area and did not give a damn about the position of small business in that area.

All those things we have instituted in the planning legislation we have in this province do not serve to protect the little person, the private citizen or small business. They cannot afford that red-tape, unworkable process. Frankly, I carry no brief for the OMB. I have appeared before the OMB. In my riding they have done not one whit to help small business, the public interest or ordinary citizens.

If nothing else, this debate serves to focus on the miserably inadequate planning system we have in this province. I hope it will finally be of some assistance in alerting the government to the inequities that are built into planning legislation. Not only can we perhaps help downtown Brantford by way of badly needed redevelopment, but we can help other areas of Ontario so that the planning process is appropriate and functions in the best interests of the citizens of our communities.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all the resident experts on Brantford who have participated in the bill in one way or the other.

There is no question that we are setting a precedent. I warn the House that there will be a bill introduced shortly dealing with the boundaries of Brantford and Brantford township, which will also bypass the OMB and will set new precedents in this Legislature. Perhaps Brantford is setting some kind of precedent, and I hope it is for the good of this province.

It was not the intent of Brantford city council to bypass the OMB through this bill, although that was exactly what they were doing. It was pointed out earlier and mentioned by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) that the city refused to have two OMB hearings. That was not the case at all. The reason the city did not have those hearings was that in both cases the potential contracts with the developers fell through or the projects fell through and there was nothing to take before the OMB.

I want to bring to the attention of the House that in this particular case, although Eaton’s and Campeau may be bluffing the city in giving the council a deadline, we have to call their bluff. The House should be aware of the fact that if the bill passes and the bluff is called, there will either be a development or else all those people who object to this particular development or feel offended by some of the things that are happening in it will not be affected in any way whatsoever. The situation will return to the status quo and will continue that way.

Should the project go through and should there be expropriation proceedings, we also have to recognize that these people have recourse. It is not going to be the final decision of the city council as to the amount of money the people will be paid or the amount of money they will get for their business, the loss of business, profits, goodwill, et cetera. If they do not like the figure offered by council, they have another recourse, to go to the Land Compensation Board, which will ensure they do have some sense of fairness in terms of how they are being dealt with.

I ought to point out to those members who seem to get carried away on the civil rights wagon that the city council has been discussing this matter at various public meetings. It has held at least three public meetings, on at least six or seven different times delegations have appeared before city council to express their views. Business improvement area meetings have been organized with the local merchants, who have had an opportunity to express their views. There has been every possible way that a council could make itself accessible to the people concerning this project. This council has tried to exercise those democratic rights.

In this case if council is wrong in what it is doing or may do, there will be elections this fall. I am sure the people of Brantford will express their feelings as to whether their wishes were carried out. Some members stated that the committee should not be the place to make the decision. I disagree with that thoroughly. I have a feeling that one of the reasons we get paid or are here is to make some decisions.

The members of this Legislature who sit on those committees live in exactly the same kind of world the members of the Ontario Municipal Board do. They have just as much experience in municipal affairs and in government as any of the members of the Ontario Municipal Board. I am sure the members can bring their expertise to bear on each individual bill and are able to make a judgement on the matter that is in the bill with some sense of knowledge of what it is all about.

The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) argued that a dozen municipalities would start coming to him and demanding similar legislation. It might be that for the first time in his life he will perform something useful and present a bill on behalf of these municipalities.

Mr. Kerrio: Another bridge at Elora.

Mr. Makarchuk: For my friends over there who are interested in the bridge at Elora, I must point out that I had a lawyer, Eddie Goodman, a person of some renown, and this matter did not go to the Ontario Municipal Board. It was not a matter in which we were dealing with the Ontario Municipal Board. To clarify that situation for those who are interested, the fact is we were trying to get the right to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada to say that the Grand River Conservation Authority did not have the right to transfer property that had been given to it for recreational purposes. We never did get that right.

The member for Durham West also stated that many municipalities will come before the committee because they have similar problems. I want to point out to him the reason they have the problems is that the legislation on the books is not able to cope or deal with the problems of these municipalities. I suggest what the government should be concerning itself with is methods to streamline the procedures that are involved in dealing with the OMB in order to recognize the problem and to let an element of common sense come into these situations. Then it is to be hoped we will not have to go through this kind of procedure here. The reason we are going through this procedure is that at the other end there is not the kind of procedure that would allow a community to be able to react instantly when it has to.

I want to conclude by saying that Brantford recently has received quite a shock in the matter of layoffs. The passage of the bill will allow that community perhaps to start working on a major project some time this fall. This is going to provide work.

I want to point out to the member for Kingston and the Islands, who is concerned about little people, that the little people want work and would like to have work. This is one of the ways to ensure that. He certainly does not care in terms of social services. As far as the little people are concerned in the children’s aid society, I have not seen him expressing that kind of concern when they come to him for funds.

This bill expresses the necessary and much- needed hope and aspiration of the people of Brantford. What the people of Brantford want this Legislature to do is to allow them the opportunity to go ahead with a project they have been trying to arrange for the last 10 or 15 years. I hope the Legislature will have the good sense to recognize some of the aspirations of the people of this province.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members.

[After some time]

Mr. Speaker: I would like to seek the assistance of the House, and I cannot do it while members are standing; so if they will please take their seats, we will see whether we can reach a consensus.

There seems to be some ambivalence about how long the bells are going to ring because, as you know, there is no time limit for a vote of this kind. If it is the unanimous will of the House that the vote not be called until eight o’clock, it does not make any sense for us to be sitting here allowing the bells to ring. I would like to see if there is some consensus in the House as to how you want to handle this.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: May I make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker? We could adjourn now and begin the bells at eight o’clock and ask that the vote be stacked until 10:15 p.m. We could do that or agree to stack the bill until 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Speaking for our caucus, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we cease the bells and proceed with some other business and have the vote at 10:15 p.m. That is agreeable to our caucus.

Mr. Nixon: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We can continue with the next order of business, which is a private bill that we have to do in committee; that could easily be done in the next few minutes before six o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Is it unanimously agreed that we will cease the bells and commence them ringing at 10:15 p.m. to dispose of this division on second reading of Bill Pr26?

Agreed.

5:40 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

MIDLAND YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Consideration of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association, 1980.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. G. E. Smith moves that section 9 of the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association Act, 1924 as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “used or occupied or owned” in the fifth and sixth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “owned and used” or “occupied and used.”

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak in support of this small but important amendment to Bill Pr4, which I had the honour of sponsoring, I would like to point out to the members that the purpose of the bill is to authorize the council of the town of Midland to exempt the lands, building and equipment of the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association from school taxes. They have been exempt from municipal taxes since 1924 under the terms of private legislation obtained in that year.

Section 9 of the 1924 act exempts the association’s buildings, lands, equipment and undertakings from municipal taxes so long as and to the extent to which they are occupied by, used and carried on for the purposes of the association.

The proposed re-enactment of section 9 contained in Bill Pr4 authorizes the Midland council to exempt the association’s land, buildings and equipment to the extent to which they are used or occupied or owned by the association. This wording opens up the possibility that the association could lease part of its property to a profit-making enterprise, which would also be exempt from municipal and school taxation.

I have complete confidence in the town of Midland and the Midland YMCA, and know they would not allow such a situation to arise. None the less, as all members are aware, new private acts are scrutinized carefully, they were discussed in committee, and the present wording would create an unfortunate precedent which might cause difficulties in the case of future private members’ bills.

To avoid such difficulties, I believe the wording in the re-enacted section 9 in Bill Pr4 should be amended to make it clear that the tax exemption may apply only to land, buildings and equipment that are actually used by the association. This will remove any possibility that the exemption can apply to a profit-making tenant of the association.

The Midland YMCA has been informed of this concern and its solicitor, Mr. Jean L. Gignac, has written to say that the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association is in full agreement with the amendment I have just proposed.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we will obviously support this amendment. I am not quite sure of the significance of the change; that is something lawyers make their fees on. I do not see any great difference between “used or occupied or owned” and “owned and used” or “occupied and used.” I am sure the member for Simcoe East is well advised on this, and we will support the amendment.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I concur generally in the comments made by the previous speaker, though I must say that having had some experience with nonprofit associations and organizations, I think I understand what the member who introduced this amendment is saying.

I am a little curious, however, as to where this amendment came from and how it came to be before us at this time. A couple of weeks ago we debated a private bill on second reading and a suggestion was made that the second reading debate and the second reading comments and criticisms might have been made more appropriately in the committee that was considering the private bill before it came to second reading. This seems to me to be the type of legal amendment that would surely be dealt with by ministry lawyers or by council to the committee or by someone prior to getting to this point.

I find it very curious that we are here today in committee of the whole, inside the House, dealing with a legalistic amendment of this nature. I would appreciate an explanation on how this amendment arose.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I think the members will recall that when we had second reading in the House, I gave notice they would be asked to go to committee of the whole because of this. When this was before the committee that dealt with this after first reading, the matter was not drawn to anyone’s attention. I think it was twigged to by the lawyers -- I am not sure if it was legislative counsel or the lawyers for the ministry -- who felt that the bill as written, as the member for Simcoe East has pointed out, could be abused at some time in the future.

The lawyers therefore felt that this “or” should be changed to “and” to make sure it had to be “owned and occupied” or “used and occupied” because if it were just owned and not occupied they could own the building, rent it to someone else and, although they would not do it, the legislation would allow them to have a tax exemption. It is not what the YMCA intended originally. It is not what the lawyers intended originally. The lawyers got together, exchanged letters, agreed to this and we are just cleaning things up.

Everything is not always caught the first time through, and I think we have to commend the legal staff of the Legislature or the ministry for giving second scrutiny to make sure everything is done the way the committee wanted it done.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill Pr4, as amended, reported.

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

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association, 1980;

Bill 42, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act;

Bill 52, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act;

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972;

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973;

Bill 61, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 62, An Act for the making of Additional Provisions for the Levy and Payment of Succession Duty by or in respect of Property or Persons to whom the Succession Duty Act remains Applicable; and

Bill 73, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.