Journal des débats 1983-janv-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know you would want me to bring to your attention the presence of Mr. Arthur Evans in the Speaker's gallery. He is the former member for Simcoe Centre, I believe.

Mr. Evans, as chairman of the select committee on conservation authorities in the early 1960s, led the committee of this House to provide the definitive work in that important matter, which has really never been exceeded from that day to this.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the funding allocations that the province will be transferring to the municipalities in 1983. Before I do, however, I would like to point out several factors that cabinet has had to face in establishing this year's allocations.

Like individuals and municipalities, the province is suffering as a result of the recession. That should come as a surprise to no one. Our major tax base revenue sources are declining, and the federal government continues to reduce its transfer payments to this province.

Since August of last year I have been advising the municipalities to be prepared for a flat-line increase in the current year and to look at every possible way to restrain their spending. From the feedback I have been receiving I believe most have taken that caution very seriously.

With that said, I would like to inform the House that the total allocation for transfer payments to municipalities in 1983 will be $2.7 billion. This represents a 9.9 per cent increase over the transfer payments announced last year.

In 1982 there was a series of mid-year transfer payment increases, primarily for welfare. After adjustments are made for these increases the real growth rate in transfer payments for 1983 is 5.8 per cent. However, it must be noted here that this level of transfer may be increased later in the year if the province's welfare commitments are higher than currently forecast.

Mr. Bradley: Oh, they are going to be.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: A negative attitude does not become that member.

In addition to the actual allocation payments I would remind members that the province transferred more than an additional $40 million to municipalities in 1982 for job creation programs. This was done to provide short-term employment and to establish the basis for long-term sustained employment through economic growth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thank the Premier. It is with his concurrence that I am making this announcement, I am sure.

This year, as has been announced, municipalities will receive funds under the $100 million Canada-Ontario economic development program.

Moving now from the province as a whole to my specific ministry, I would like to advise the House that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will transfer some $723 million through the unconditional grants program to Ontario's municipalities in the current year. Of this total, $676 million will be distributed through our program's six major transfer or grant programs: general, police and density per capita grants; general and northern support grants; and the resource equalization grants.

This $676 million represents a $28 million, or 4.3 per cent, increase over the 1982 payments. The remaining $47 million is available to various municipalities as payments in lieu of taxes on government properties and for apportionment guarantees, transitional, special assistance and loss of revenue grants.

This time last year I announced that the policy would have some restraints on it, and I also indicated at the same time that I would respond to the municipalities' requests to review the entire unconditional grant program for Ontario. Such a review has been going on within my ministry and in consultation with the other ministries of our government. Beginning in February this consultation will be extended to include the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to meet yesterday or today with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to review with them the announcement I am making this afternoon. Unfortunately most of them are detained in their own municipalities because of forecasting their budgets and special council meetings.

The apportionment policy will remain unchanged for 1983, and we will continue to phase out the apportionment guarantee grants over the next period of time. Details of both the unconditional grants and the apportionment procedure will be forwarded to municipalities very shortly. In addition, my colleagues whose ministries have major transfers to the municipal sector will be providing details of their programs during the next relatively short period of time.

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, do opposition critics have copies of the statement already? May I just advise members of the press that copies will be here for them momentarily.

I would like to make some further comments about the circumstances that led me to introduce the bill for the Crown Trust Act, 1983, for first reading yesterday. Members will recall that I stated in reply to a question from the leader of the official opposition that I would look very seriously at any options that enable me to provide the opposition parties with the kind of information that is available to me and which can be released or made available in a manner that does not compromise other situations.

2:10 p.m.

A major and continuing concern we have had throughout our dealings with each of the trust companies was and is how to balance the need for adequate public disclosure against the potential effect of public reaction to such information in ways that might not be justified.

As I have emphasized on a number of occasions, we believe we have a process under way that is capable of ensuring that all deposits in Crown Trust will be paid as they mature. If, however, because of excessive public reaction to information, those clients of Crown Trust who have assets being administered in estates, trusts or on an agency basis withdraw these assets to any significant degree, then an important element of value in the company may be substantially reduced.

It follows, of course, that any such reduction in value prejudices our ability to sell the assets and to complete the arrangements under which Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. is prepared to provide the very substantial financial support necessary during the transition of ownership.

Now that legislation is before the House, and in the hope that further sharing of information will lead to an early passage of the required legislation, I have offered today to have one of my special advisers, Mr. Jack Biddell, meet privately with the leaders of the opposition parties later this afternoon. This will provide them with an opportunity to obtain explanations which in our judgement we cannot properly make public in that form at this time. The purpose would be to put them in a better position to assess what action they should take in respect of the bill.

I will be tabling today a letter to the registrar from Woods Gordon dated and received January 15, 1983, which summarizes that firm's comments on the overall affairs of Crown Trust Co. I will also be tabling excerpts from the detailed report of Woods Gordon also submitted on January 15, 1983, which describes certain of the major transactions that resulted in the erosion of the capital base of the company.

The only reason I am not prepared to release the full text of the Woods Gordon report is that it contains a detailed analysis of the company's affairs. Much of it is information not usually made public and most of it does not relate in any significant way to the financial problems of the company that led us to our decisions. Even within the excerpts from the report that I am releasing today, I found it necessary to blank out certain details about commercial transactions that are currently being negotiated by the staff of Crown Trust and which could be prejudiced by disclosure of these details.

I would also like to make further information available about the distribution of the moneys loaned by the three trust companies in respect of the Cadillac Fairview properties. I am advised that on the closing of the sales of the Cadillac Fairview properties, the cash paid by the three trust companies was a net amount of $137 million. This was money loaned from their guaranteed investment accounts on the security of third mortgages on the properties sold by Cadillac Fairview.

The money came as follows: from Seaway Trust Co., $76 million; from Greymac Trust Co., $13 million; and from Crown Trust Co., $63 million. This gave a total of $152 million less a cash deposit made and still in the possession of Crown Trust Co. of $15 million. Crown has not yet received specific instructions as to who owns this deposit. It was paid to Crown at the closing of the sale on the instructions of Kilderkin. The registrar will not be releasing any part of the deposit until this whole matter is fully investigated.

The $137 million paid out by the trust companies was distributed in accordance with instructions given by Kilderkin. At the closing there was not only a closing of the three-tiered sale transaction, but also combined with it there was apparently a settlement of a number of outstanding accounts between the three most involved parties -- Greymac Credit, Seaway and Kilderkin.

The net amount of the $137 million provided by the three trust companies went to the following:

To Cadillac Fairview, being the balance owing to it on the original sale to Greymac Credit -- the only transaction in which, as I understand it, Cadillac Fairview was involved or had any knowledge of -- $40.5 million; to Greymac Credit Corp., for its profit on the resale of the Cadillac Fairview properties to Kilderkin, $42.5 million; for the balance owing to it on the sale of Greymac Mortgage Corp. to Kilderkin, $30 million; to Green Door Investments Ltd., $8.1 million; to Kilderkin, $11.2 million; for taxes and legal fees, $4.7 million, for a total of $137 million, remembering that $15 million was left on deposit with Crown Trust. We understand that Green Door Investments Ltd. is owned by Kilderkin or related to it.

The solicitors who represented Kilderkin at the closing advised that they had been informed that the numbered companies, to which title to the properties was passing at the closing, had already satisfied their obligation to Kilderkin in respect of the more than $100 million in cash, which would ordinarily have been paid by the numbered companies on closing. None of the parties present at the closing acknowledged having seen this money, and Kilderkin has so far refused to tell the investigators how and by whom it was paid or was to be paid.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, presumably there is some new information here and it will take some time to digest it. However I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if he could explain to me why the legislation he brought in yesterday asked for virtually unprecedented powers, to the best of our knowledge.

He has asked for the sale of the assets of Crown Trust without recourse by anyone to have this reviewed by the courts -- unless, of course, the registrar acts on malicious motives. He has asked for provisions that would allow no review by the Legislature of these actions. Finally he has asked that the cabinet be allowed to override by order in council the provisions of the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act, an unprecedented parliamentary power.

At the same time the minister has given us no explanation, unless there is some new information in these documents he has filed today. I refer particularly to the Woods Gordon report and the note to the financial statement on page three, which says: "At this point we have no reason to believe the company's cash and equivalents, portfolio of bonds and common stocks, revenue-producing properties and nonrevenue-producing assets are not intact and fairly stated in the company's accounts on a going concern basis."

Unless the minister can point it out to me in the paper he filed today, there appears to be no reason to suggest he must move with such haste at this point and, at the same time, take these extraordinary powers unto himself.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the last part of that question at some length, because I think it is an important question. I would like to say clearly, in the honest belief that the public understands this, that the government, and to some extent the opposition parties taking part in this, have acted very deliberately and thoughtfully in the process that has gone on before this Legislature over these issues.

On November 16 a number of proposals were introduced to allow the government and the Legislature to achieve certain goals. First, in recognition that there might be some events in the future that might cause tenants to pay rents that were deemed to be inappropriate, measures were taken to protect tenants during the period of investigation. At the same time, a royal commission was introduced to look at the adequacy of our rent review legislation. I say this so that no one will think there is any precipitous action going on in this Legislature.

2:20 p.m.

As a third measure, the Morrison inquiry was commenced to look into and examine specific trust companies and mortgage companies and to review the conduct of their business.

When it became apparent to this government that other steps might be necessary and that there was not adequate legislative power, in our opinion, to deal with this, legislation was carefully drafted and introduced with the concurrence of the opposition parties for which I publicly praised both parties.

A deliberate decision was made at that time not to give the registrar or the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the government the power to arbitrarily sell any of the assets of any corporation the government did take over. The government felt, quite frankly, that it should say what it was intending to do in specific circumstances.

In response to that legislation, on January 7 action was taken which the member was prompting, which the public was prompting and which the media was prompting, because we were all concerned about these things. When adequate information was provided to the cabinet, which met on three separate occasions to deliberate on these issues, moves were taken and the registrar took possession of three trust companies.

As a result of information gathered from that action it became apparent -- setting aside Greymac and Seaway, which will be dealt with as information becomes available to me and to this government -- that in order to preserve Crown Trust as a business and enable that company to protect depositors' interests and to have business as usual, it was necessary that it be sold to a purchaser, with the backing of Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and massive amounts of money which nobody else is prepared to put into this deal. There is nothing precipitous about that.

I acknowledge that we have no precedent to follow in these areas, so we are acting without precedent to some degree. Ordinarily what one would do in a situation like this is to wind up the company and try to sell the assets as best one can in order to salvage some money for depositors beyond their insured amounts over a period of many years. Only then would one know what the recovery was to be.

We have chosen to take this step, for which there is no precedent, in order to preserve the depositor's assets that are at present in Crown Trust. CDIC, which was willing to infuse massive amounts of money to achieve this for the reasons I outlined yesterday and in conjunction with us, feels that the only way to do that effectively is to sell Crown Trust as an ongoing business.

I do not think it is fair criticism to suggest that the good-faith protection given to the registrar in that section of the act is an unusual protection. If one looks into any act of any ministry of this government, by and large it will be found that registrars and others have protection for acts carried out in good faith.

Members will also understand that section 10(2), which in effect says the purchaser will have a good and solid title, is clearly necessary. No purchaser in the world would be interested in acquiring an ongoing business unless there was an assured title, and the member knows that. So there is no doubt it is necessary.

It was never the intention of the government to deprive shareholders, or preferred shareholders, of some access in order to determine whether or not the registrar had acted with good commercial prudence. If the phrase "good faith" does not provide that access then I am prepared to amend it in some way to make certain they do have that access -- to prove to their satisfaction that the registrar acted with good commercial prudence in what we are trying to do to protect depositors.

Let us always remember what the alternatives are with the legislation before this House.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to end the secrecy, and table in this House any legal opinions he has with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation? Particularly, are there any violations of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the crown law office that the statute is within the constitutional power of this Legislature. I am not prepared to table any material on it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated on the record that he has invited me and the leader of the Liberal Party to attend a private briefing with Mr. Biddell. I have turned down that invitation on behalf of our party because we believe this is the kind of information that should be presented and discussed in a committee of this House in public. We do not think the public interest is served if either I or the Leader of the Opposition are given confidential information which we are not in a position to discuss or disclose in any way. I want that to be clear for the record.

Rather than releasing information in dribs and drabs before this House the way it has done over the last while, why does not the government simply present the bill for second reading on Thursday and allow a full discussion on it when it goes to committee? There should be a full discussion at committee stage of the whys and the wherefores of the government taking this action. Does the minister not think that would do more to restore public confidence rather than continuing the pattern of secrecy and confidentiality which has so marred the proceedings thus far?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would submit with the greatest respect that there is public confidence in the actions of the government. The public understands very clearly what we are after. We are after ways and means of protecting the depositor. I assume that is what we are all interested in.

Mr. Rae: So are we; so are we.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn't you do that in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is very interesting that the leader of the third party talks about dribs and drabs. He knows that the very first day the Legislature met this month I indicated very clearly that as information became available to me I would convey it to the House. That is what I have been doing. If the leader of the third party does not wish me to do that, he should say so. I will clutch it to my little breast and just roll it out in big packages for him so he can criticize me for not having told it to him earlier, if that is what he wants.

I do not know whether it is possible to penetrate with the message I am trying to give the member, but the message is very clear. I know he wants information. Members of my own caucus would cherish information that gave them further insight into these matters.

There are three kinds of information I have trouble with. First, there is information that I have on the basis of legal advice as a result of a variety of actions and potential actions I am constrained from giving. Second, there is information that I do not have or that is not perfect enough yet to allow me to give it to this Legislature without in a sense misleading the members. Third, there is information that would be prejudicial to the interests of the public and of the depositors and to certain discussions and negotiations that are going on both at the level of Crown staff and with relation to others involved in the matters before us.

I am not withholding information in any deliberate sense to try to mislead or withhold anything from anybody. I am interested in protecting depositors and in protecting the public and in preserving what can best be preserved to protect the interests of the first two. That is my goal and I assume it is the member's goal.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the minister has acknowledged the responsibility of my leader. When he wanted legislation to protect the tenants, we co-operated. When he wanted legislation for takeover, again we co-operated; we accepted it in good faith. On the basis of very limited evidence and information, here he is now asking for draconian measures. The minister mentioned subsection 10(2) of his bill. Does he not understand that not only does the purchaser apparently get clear title under this legislation but also, in effect, the legislation, decision, sale, assignment or anything done is not even subject to court review.

In the light of the fact that limited information has been given, and given the draconian measures he is asking for in this case, why would he not make such decisions, either by the registrar or by making the sales or assignment subject to court review? What is he afraid of? Why would he not want the courts to be given an opportunity, if necessary, to review these decisions?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let us take the questions stage by stage. There was a degree of common interest in protecting the tenants. Mind you, sir, there were some political games played; we all understand that --

Mr. Martel: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, heavens. Politics in here? Forgive me; I should not have mentioned it. Are the members critical of my saying that?

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Shall I withdraw it?

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Okay, I will not withdraw it. There were some politics played during that event.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You're the one with the cards.

Mr. Eakins: He won't be playing games before it is over.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: But then, because there was a sense of honest and serious concern on the part of all members in this Legislature about certain events that were taking place, responsible action was taken by all three parties. For that, I congratulate them.

An hon. member: Don't go too far, Bob.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sorry. Did I go too far?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think my colleagues are wrong; I did not go too far. They were responsible with respect to the December --

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I mean that. All those things that we talked about and agreed upon in that bill looked to the fact that there might be the need to use those sections of it one day. If that had not been contemplated, we would not have brought the bill in. Clearly we all understood there was a good possibility, and we all knew that once the registrar was in possession of those assets, there were only certain outcomes that were possible: to turn them back, to wind them up or to try to sell one or more as ongoing businesses. That is what we are about here with the bill that is before the House: preserving a business and protecting the depositors.

If the members know somebody who is interested in buying this as an ongoing business without clear title, let them produce him.

Mr. Roy: I didn't say that.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not know anybody like that and, if I did, I would have to be very concerned about the offer.

Mr. Roy: Clear title isn't the issue. It is immunity you are giving, absolute immunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out for the information of all honourable members that this is a very important matter. We have used up 18 minutes on the first question.

MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister regarding Seaway Trust. On the basis of information provided by the minister, at least $70 million or 36.5 per cent of the Seaway Trust mortgage portfolio, as early as June 30, 1982, represented Kilderkin-related loans; most, if not all, of those loans were, in the minister's own words, in excess of 75 per cent of the value of the property as permitted by the act.

Can the minister explain how these matters escaped the attention of the registrar, who has a positive duty to inspect? Why were the minister and the registrar not made aware of this situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let me go back to what I said before with respect to Seaway Trust. I have not yet received any final reports on Seaway Trust with respect to the ultimate opinions and findings that are being obtained by the representatives of the registrar who are currently in possession of that corporation. When I have that information, I will be pleased to report it to the Legislature.

I have indicated very clearly that if members have any serious questions about the registrar -- and I do not have information that gives me those questions yet -- I have asked for an internal review of the administrative practices and procedures of that division; if I feel an external review is warranted, I will have one conducted. In any event, I will report to the House, as I have said. Let us not pretend that any blocking of this information is going on. I have said I will report to the House.

Mr. Peterson: I have no faith in the minister's internal review. I remind him that $70 million in improperly secured mortgage loans existed at least four months before the famous Cadillac Fairview purchase, and some of those were going on up to two years before that date.

Mr. Markle, the chairman and owner of Seaway Trust, has said the government inspectors never questioned the manner in which he conducted his mortgage loan operations. If that is true, can the minister explain why he or the registrar has not seen fit to comment on Seaway Trust operations and in particular on its mortgage lending practices?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to associate myself with approving or disapproving of any remarks Mr. Markle made. The story of Seaway Trust, I feel confident, ultimately will be reported to us either by way of the registrar or by way of the Morrison inquiry, which is currently under way and which is examining people under oath.

I think the honourable member tends not to sense the quality of that inquiry. A very senior and experienced man from Touche Ross is conducting the inquiry and a senior and very competent counsel from Fraser and Beatty is directing the endeavours of that inquiry. I believe it is an inquiry that will produce the kind of report this Legislature feels is appropriate to the circumstances.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is also an inquiry that has been going on for two and a half months and we still do not know where William Player is. That, I would have thought, would be a fairly basic piece of information to know.

I refer the minister to page 8 of the Woods Gordon report and ask him to comment on this statement in the middle of the page: "Interest instalments of approximately $1.6 million due on each of December 10 and January 10 have not been received to date. We understand your solicitors are reviewing this matter and the terms under which the $15 million deposit can be applied before concluding whether the debtor(s) is (are) in default. If it is to be used to satisfy the third mortgage instalments, it would be absorbed in approximately 12 to 15 months."

I asked the minister this question last week with respect to the interest payments on the third mortgage. It now appears that this evidence was available to the minister on January 15, 1983. I ask the minister, first of all, whether he can confirm that interest on the third mortgage has not been paid. Second, can he tell us why he was not in a position to give us that information last week?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the very portion of the report quoted by the honourable member gives the underlying reason for my reluctance to comment explicitly last week. What it clearly says is not only that the lawyers are reviewing the fact that the payments had not been made as of the date of the report, January 15, but also that they are clearly looking at directions, and there is some confusion about the directions, as to the disposition of the $15 million. I said that until those two matters were cleared up, I was not prepared, and I am still not prepared, to say, in any definitive sense, the payments have not been made. When I have that cleared up, I will report it.

I am honestly trying to be as open as possible and to report factual information, not speculations and possibilities, to this Legislature. Surely members understand that and expect me to behave that way.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure when the minister checks the behaviour of the ministry and of the registrar and his staff, he will find a trail of negligence over the past couple of years. That is why I am asking him this question.

How can he come to the House today and attempt to cloak the actions he is taking in the guise of protecting the depositors of Crown when, at the same time, there is close to $500 million worth of deposits and guaranteed investment certificates in Seaway and Greymac, and he is not prepared to protect those depositors? How can he draw that distinction?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member is drawing a distinction that may be misleading to others but not to me, because I understand what he is trying to say. I am telling him very clearly, as I have told him many times before, that we have the same goals or hopes with respect to all trust companies in this issue.

As soon as information is received that allows me to report to this House what the fate of the other two trust companies will be, I will report it. I am not withholding information; I am endeavouring to be open about those matters that I can be open about, living within the constraints I have outlined very clearly.

KILDERKIN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the statement he made today. I ask him to consider that together with the report of Woods Gordon. By the way, I am missing page 10 of my Woods Gordon report.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I made it very clear in my statement that these are excerpts from the Woods Gordon report. Those numbers are my numbers, not the numbers of the pages from which those excerpts are taken. I would not want to mislead this House with respect to the nature of that document. I said that clearly in my statement.

Mr. Rae: The only reason I raise it is that the minister will know that as page 9 ends we are left with the following enticing sentence: "Because the properties are financed 100 per cent plus, we question whether any rational investor" -- and then it stops. I would have thought this might be a nice sentence to have an ending to, since they are questioning what a rational investor is going to be doing.

Be that as it may, my question to the minister concerns the Morrison inquiry, Mr. Player and Kilderkin. How can the minister explain the last sentence of his report to this House with respect to the activities of Mr. Player in Kilderkin? He says, "None of the parties present at the closing acknowledge having seen this money, and Kilderkin has so far refused to tell the investigators how and by whom it was paid or was to be paid."

How does the minister square that statement with the statement he made to this House at the end of December, when he said that if Mr. Player, Kilderkin or any one of the numbered companies refused to co-operate with the Morrison inquiry, he would broaden that inquiry. Is he telling us now that Mr. Player has refused to co-operate? If he is telling us that, what does he intend to do about it to see that we can get the truth?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: My friend should calm down. I must say that we have the case of the Pimpernel page here, because the last time I looked at the original it was there, and I apologize to the honourable member. My able assistants are out chasing down the Pimpernel page for him so he can have full access to it.

What I said to the member in the past week or so with respect to Mr. Player and Kilderkin was that there were parties who we believed had relevant information who were under oath. One of those parties is Mr. Player, and the examination of him was adjourned and will be resumed at some date that I am not aware of yet.

Surely the member is not saying that because some lawyer asked for an adjournment and it was granted, we should suddenly say the whole inquiry is useless. That is not the way I understand the process, and I suspect that is not the way the member understands the process. I assume that in the many hearings the member went before, he occasionally had an adjournment. Assuming that, then that is what has happened here.

Mr. Rae: It is precisely because we warned the minister that there were going to be problems with these companies appearing before Mr. Morrison, questioning his jurisdiction and refusing to answer certain questions, that we said at that time, in the middle of November, there had to be a full public inquiry; and that is a demand we stand by in this caucus, because we think it is the only way we are going to get the information.

With respect to the minister's statement, at the end of the sentence on page 4 he says, "There was apparently a settlement of a number of outstanding accounts between the three most involved parties, Greymac Credit, Seaway and Kilderkin." Why the word "apparently"? Was there or was there not a settlement of other outstanding accounts? And what was the settlement of those accounts'? Is the minister at least in a position to give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With respect, I believe the information provided on page 5 and partially on page 6 provides a pretty concrete idea of the distribution of moneys in keeping with the portion on page 4 relating to a settlement of a number of outstanding accounts. That is exactly what I gave today. I explained that on the basis of the best information we have, and there are some conflicting directions with respect to this, that is the distribution.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I refer to page 6 of the minister's statement; that is the last paragraph in his statement where he talks about "the $100 (plus) million in cash which would ordinarily have been paid by the numbered companies on closing." It goes on to say, "None of the parties present at the closing acknowledge having seen this money, and Kilderkin has so far refused to tell the investigators how and by whom it was paid or was to be paid."

Is the minister now confirming through this statement the press reports of a week or so ago that up to $125 million is either missing or untraceable or has been looted from these companies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, idle speculation does not help the situation at all. I mean that quite sincerely. What I said clearly here was that on the occasion of the passing of the title it was said that the obligation of Kilderkin in respect to that money had already been satisfied.

I am not saying the money is missing. All I am saying is that the parties at the closing and Kilderkin have so far not acknowledged by whom it was paid, to whom it was paid and where it was paid. That is one of the questions Mr. Morrison is putting to parties as they come before him under oath. That is what it is all about. It is a public inquiry under part II of the Public Inquiries Act which he was designated to do under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Mr. Rae: It is some public inquiry when we cannot get any of the information or make any of it public.

The whole thrust of the Woods Gordon report is that the Cadillac Fairview properties are dramatically overvalued. As they say: "we are unable to conclude that their stated carrying values will be realized either at this time or subsequently. Under present economic conditions and markets, we would think it prudent to allow for a significant and potentially total loss in their carrying values." That is from the missing page, which the minister has just provided us with.

I ask the minister, is it the government's intention to assume its responsibilities as trustee and move to foreclose on the buildings to protect the mortgage holders and to secure the rights of the tenants, or does it intend to leave that option to the new owners of Crown Trust, whom we do not know and have not yet identified? Is the right to exercise that option part of the package that now is being bid on by the four or five companies -- depending on which version one believes -- interested in purchasing Crown Trust?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am interested that it is the careful and decisive legal opinion of the leader of the third party that the appropriate route to go is through exercising powers under mortgages if those mortgages have not been paid. We will remember that, and we hope he will remember it.

The government has taken all its obligations and responsibilities in this matter very seriously. It is quite remarkable: If one did not move last week, one should have moved; if one moves this week, one moves in a draconian way. It is quite a remarkable experience when surely everyone in this House should have the same goal: to protect the depositors. One of the aspects of the whole issue the government and its lawyers are looking at carefully is the matter the member referred to.

2:50 p.m.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Davis) invited us to have a look at the government's record with respect to housing and public housing in particular. We have done that, and I want to refer the Premier to the following facts.

Since 1976 the number of family units directly administered by the government has gone down by 57, while the waiting list for families has gone up from 13,719 to 17,794. In 1976, the number of family heads unemployed in the province, and eligible for this kind of housing, was 66,000; in the six years since then the number in this category has swollen to 179,000 in 1982.

Does the Premier not realize that his government in the past six years has presided over a dramatic decline in commitment to affordable housing and public housing for Ontarians? Does he not realize that this is happening at exactly the same time as unemployment is increasing dramatically in this province? How does he reconcile those two facts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do recall my answer yesterday. I invited the leader of the New Democratic Party to compare the achievements of this province with those of our sister provinces or, quite frankly, with any state of the union, in terms of provision of accommodation, whether subsidized, low-income, middle-income or whatever.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What the honourable member perhaps has not totally assessed is that during that same time frame this government, in conjunction with the government of Canada, was involved in a multitude of programs that led to the provision of affordable housing.

Mr. Cooke: Yes; that is why the waiting list is up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I invite the member to come to a certain constituency I know rather well where he will find many hundreds of units that were accepted by my municipality and built under the assisted home ownership program with assistance from this government and the government of Canada; those units are providing accommodation for people in that income area where they have ownership, where they now are living in a great community in houses they own. The member should not stand there and tell me how we as a government have failed in terms of accommodation.

I say to the leader of the NDP, although surely he is aware of it, that this province has done more for and provided more to its people at all income levels in the way of better accommodation than any other province in Canada or any state of the union. Can he show me figures to the contrary?

Mr. Rae: I thought it was only the Liberals that took credit for AHOP. How wrong I am. Apparently it is a Tory program as well that gets people into some housing they cannot afford and causes foreclosures right across this province. We have seen it and we know it.

Let us look at this government's record this year. I ask the Premier to comment on the following three facts. The government had the gall to announce the InnoRent program of $48 million last May. It had the gall to announce the $10-million Renthab program. It also had the gall not to provide a cent or a nickel for those programs. Then, when it came to nonprofit housing with municipalities, it cut the budget for 1982-83 from $1.5 million to $920,000.

How can the Premier justify that failure to fund? At the same time that the government is holding out those programs, it is failing to fund them; and when it comes to municipal nonprofit housing, it is cutting that down. How can he justify that at a time when we have tens of thousands of homeless people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He is all mixed up again.

Mr. Mackenzie: No. The people who are mixed up are over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I find it surprising that one who has spent most of his political career in the major leagues in Ottawa does not totally understand that many of these programs relate to the allocation from the government of Canada. Maybe I should not be so surprised. Maybe that is why the member came here from the major leagues: to show us how it was done. I have to say that to date we are not too impressed.

If I can recall this accurately, I think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), when the member related to the two programs that we did not move ahead with at this time, made it abundantly clear that in terms of our allocation of priorities we went ahead with a program that provided housing for those people in apartments who were seeking new homes, which would relieve the pressure on apartment accommodation.

I have to say to the member that I can take him once again to a community that I know rather well where several of those 15,000 applicants, young people who might have gone into apartments, now have their own homes because they happen to have had the enlightened generosity of this government and of the government of Canada. I have to say to him, that is money well invested by the public in a social program of great significance for this province.

The members opposite do not like it because it has been successful. I understand the New Democrats. They never like to see anything succeed, because it frustrates them; and I enjoy watching their frustration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the chairman of the neighbourhoods committee of the city council of Toronto. They are going to have a special meeting on January 28 at which point they want to find out from the Premier's government what will happen to the funding he promised in 1982 to Cityhome and the projects that Cityhome wanted to build. They want to know what his government plans to do in refunding the programs he withdrew. What will his answer to this be on January 28?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question more directly related to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I do not think I have been invited to the meeting on January 28.

If the member for Parkdale is saying I am invited, I apologize but I expect to be elsewhere. I expect to be in Winnipeg. I will be supporting our national leader, unlike the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), who will not support his national leader.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: I do not believe the Premier has answered this question, nor has he asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps Joe Clark can solve the housing problem for the Premier. I do not know. What we do know is that all of us are being inundated with requests from families for help with low-income housing. We have families that are living in cars, we have young people who are living in shelters who want to have permanent accommodation and we have a government that says, "You compare us to Mississippi, Alabama or some jurisdiction south of the border and that will solve the problem." We in this party do not think that is very much of an answer.

In the light of the fact that the Treasurer went to a conference last month and came away saying it was a very successful conference, saying what a wonderful time they had and how he got on so well with Marc Lalonde, will the Premier not introduce today a program that will put the 50,000 construction workers who are out of work in this province back to work, provide housing for the more than 50,000 people who now are considered to be homeless in this province and show a little leadership and compassion for those people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I regret that the member feels that my expansive nature on occasion prompts him to be upset that I would compare what we are doing here to other parts of the world. I will just go back somewhat. If the member checks Hansard carefully, he will find that his predecessor once and twice removed spent endless hours -- they used to bring books in here; l can remember Stephen Lewis bringing a textbook in here as it related to academic matters -- extolling the virtues of California, Colorado and many other states of the union because it served their selfish interests in those days to make those comparisons when it suited them.

With great respect, I am not singling out Mississippi and Alabama. The member may not like those states; quite frankly, I have never been to either of them. But let us not confine our activities there. Let us do a little assessment in California or in Oregon, in any state of the union. The member should not try to pin me down as comparing Ontario only to Alabama and Mississippi. He may want to discriminate against those two states; I do not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that the leader of the third party more than anyone else is responsible for bringing down one government, and putting back into power a government that is not sensitive in terms of how it --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not come here and be critical of me.

Mr. Conway: The expert on who destroyed Joe Clark just sat down.

3 p.m.

PRINTING OF BILL

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have a very brief but I believe very important point of order. I would like you to take the following matter under advisement. I was listening to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) talking about the bill earlier today and, when going through my papers, I noted that Bill 215 is a rather exceptional piece of legislation and appears to be rather different from all other bills here. It is not printed by the Queen's Printer but by the authority of the Legislative Assembly. It is set in a rather different print.

Given all the worry about insider information, I would like you to take it under advisement and get back to me as to who printed this bill and under what conditions, so I could satisfy my concern that it might not have been printed by Victoria and Grey Trust.

Mr. Speaker: It is very interesting that you should notice that. This is the very first bill printed under the authority of the Legislative Assembly rather than the Queen's Printer. It represents a new format that will be followed from this time on.

Mr. Conway: I accept that. I just note with some surprise that Bill 216 is under the old format. What am I to make of that?

Mr. Speaker: As I said, Bill 215 is the first bill under the new format. Bill 216 was printed first and Bill 215 followed. That is the explanation.

Mr. Peterson: Are you running the printing presses too, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is under the authority of the whole assembly.

UNCONTESTED DIVORCES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Would the chief law officer of the crown advise whether he is aware of the decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada which has apparently rejected a plan that would allow for the granting of uncontested divorces without the need for lawyer assistance and costly hearings?

Is the Attorney General aware of that decision? Does he support that decision? Will he tell us, as has been commented in many stories, that his ministry will continue to pressure the federal government to make changes to the federal Divorce Act, thereby allowing uncontested divorces to go through without the necessity of long-drawn-out hearings, saving the time of the court, saving money and in a sense ridding ourselves of a procedure that is both demeaning for the parties and for the courts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the idea of avoiding unnecessary court appearances as far as undefended divorces are concerned. I agree with the member for Ottawa East that the present system is unsatisfactory. We march large numbers of people on any one day through very brief hearings and the dignity of the proceedings and the feelings of the participants are very adversely affected. It often has more of an appearance of a cattle auction than what should be a dignified court proceeding.

I want to make it clear that I am very much in favour of eliminating these unnecessary court appearances that can delay the process and do not seem to serve any useful purpose as far as undefended divorce cases are concerned.

Having said that, I have to say I also think some of the news reports that talked about us being in favour of some sort of mail-order divorce procedure are quite inaccurate. I think the matter can be resolved on the basis of affidavits that are properly filed and scrutinized. As a matter of fact, this procedure is being followed in the Hamilton unified family court at present and seems to be working out very well and has widespread public acceptance. It would certainly be desirable to have an amendment to the federal Divorce Act because, as the member knows, the requirement for a hearing does create some obstacles as far as avoiding the current practice is concerned.

As far as the law society is concerned, I do not know the reasons for its rejection of the proposal. I would only be guessing if I suggested it might have something to do with its feeling it should await some amendment to the federal Divorce Act. I just do not know its reasoning. I just want to assure the member I support a process that will make undefended divorce hearings less expensive, avoid delays and not put people unnecessarily through a court appearance that is often demeaning, given the number of cases heard on any day. I will continue to press the federal government for the necessary changes to its divorce legislation.

Mr. Roy: I am pleased to hear the Attorney General's comments on this issue. He will obviously know that some efficient judges were able to crank out 50 or so divorces in a couple of hours on a good morning. So the process, as he says, was somewhat of a rubber stamp and demeaning to all involved.

Would the Attorney General confirm that if such a process was instituted we would probably save, according to the chairman of the legal aid committee, Mr. Chadwick, some 70 per cent of the $2.8 million legal aid budget that goes towards family matters? Does that have some relationship to the law society's rejection?

The Attorney General might convey to the Law Society of Upper Canada that, to those of us who are not apprised of the reasons for its review, or the veto in this particular case, it should be advised that its decision has given rise to some pretty cynical comments, for instance, by my dear colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), who mentioned make-work projects. In fact, the veto by the law society gives the impression of being in the circumstances very self-serving. I think that is unfortunate. There is a lot of other legislation, including Bill 215, that creates work for the lawyers in this province.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not so sure that there is going to be as much saving as Mr. Chadwick states, but that is his estimate. While the saving of money is an important factor, I have to say I am probably more influenced by the idea of pursuing a course of action that does not put individual citizens through an unnecessary and often demeaning process. That is my number one priority.

I would also like to assure the member that the law society will not have the last word in this matter, so it really does not possess a veto, at least in the broadest sense of that term.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In the light of the statement yesterday by federal Environment minister Mr. Roberts, clearly indicating the serious nature of the problems associated with contaminants from the S area dump in Niagara Falls, New York, getting into the Niagara River and ultimately into Lake Ontario, and the further possibility of ground-water contamination on the Ontario side of the river, and since the federal government has decided not to intervene directly in the legal case but instead to deal directly with putting pressure on the federal and state authorities and to support the intervention of Canadian public interest groups, is the minister prepared to support financially and technically the Canadian interventions by public interest groups so that Canada can go into those legal hearings with a strong and unified position on this very serious matter?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am sure that if the honourable member has read the material that was made available by Mr. Roberts at his press conference one of the first things he would recognize is that there is essentially no new information beyond what I released when I made my statement and tabled our hydrogeological document in the House last year. In fact, my impression is that probably some of Mr. Roberts's conclusions were based on the material I provided to him at that time. He might have had some other sources; I do not know. If he had, then clearly that is not known to me or my staff, although we have been working closely with the staff of his ministry.

The position he indicated with regard to federal government intervention remains the same as it has always been. The federal government has taken that position consistently not only on this intervention but also on other matters relating to acid precipitation and airborne pollutants, so that is not a new departure at all.

With regard to the meetings that have been taking place with respect to pressuring, as the member says, the state and federal governments in the United States and members of the Environmental Protection Agency, my ministry and staff have also been part of those discussions that have taken place both in Washington and in Canada, and we will continue to participate in those.

However, with respect to the latter part of the member's question on the funding of public interest groups, I will be as supportive as I can of those groups but I maintain my position and my view that this government, and I as a minister of the crown, have a mandate and a responsibility to discharge, which I am not prepared to abdicate to a public interest group that does not have a similar mandate from the general public of this province. I feel that the interests of the people of Ontario as a whole as they relate to this issue can best be represented by an aggressive and responsible stance on the part of my ministry and this government.

Mr. Charlton: I hope the minister will at least ensure some financial support and that the presentations he may intend to make will be worked in co-operation with the public interest groups so as not to weaken either of what appears are going to be separate cases.

I wonder if the minister can comment -- and I think it is fair to say there have been some new federal studies done, although a lot of the documentation relates to the reports that the minister released earlier -- on the need for setting out now the development of a program to upgrade water treatment plants in Ontario, taking water from Lake Ontario and the Niagara River, as the kinds of problems that are evolving here clearly indicate the growth of the chemical contamination of the river and ultimately of Lake Ontario.

Is he prepared to set out and develop a program for upgrading our water treatment plants to deal with the removal of toxic chemicals from our water supplies?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In answer to the first part of the member's question, though perhaps it was a preamble, I assure him that I will at all times seek to co-operate to the fullest extent with any other interested groups with whom we share a common cause. Certainly that is true of the interest groups that I think the member has in mind.

There may be times when we may not be able to share the same strategic objectives or the same strategy by virtue of the perhaps heavier responsibility in these things that I bear than they might at some time. But I can assure the member that I will not do anything to thwart their efforts, as I trust they would not to thwart ours, because obviously we do have a common cause.

With respect to upgrading water treatment facilities --

Mr. Charlton: Developing a program.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes. First of all, I can assure the member at this stage that in any discussions I have had with those who are most expert in the technology of further treatment and using methods such as activated carbon filtration and so on, I am told the levels at present are such low levels that form of treatment is not indicated because it would probably have little or no effect. We are monitoring the situation very carefully, obviously. We continue to do regular testing. All of the tests so far have indicated that the contaminants are well within any existing Canadian or international guidelines.

If there should be any indication that a program is necessary for some modification to the water treatment systems in Ontario, we will respond very quickly.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern among municipal politicians and staff in the Halton region regarding the dump site on the Niagara River. Is it possible that the state of New York and the United States authorities are in breach of the international water quality agreement of 1972 as far as water quality and emissions into that river are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this point answer the member definitively, although I can assure him that I have instructed the staff of my ministry to investigate not only that but other international treaties which predated it to see if there is any breach that might exist.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I note that the report in the paper today indicates that Doug Hallett of Environment Canada is continuing with tests on mutagenic chemicals in the waters and that there is a Toronto health department study which is currently under way. Can the minister inform us if he is making his monitoring facilities available to both Dr. Hallett and to the Toronto department of health? Is he doing tests in addition to those, or are they in conjunction with the studies currently under way by those individuals?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, any information we have and any facilities that are not already taxed to the limit would be made available in co-operation with those efforts. I cannot, off the top of my head, relate any specific exchange that has taken place. Certainly, we have no hesitation in sharing whatever material we have with others who are engaged in that research.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 1982, in announcing the Dubin investigation into current procedures at the Hospital for Sick Children, the Minister of Health stated, "I intend to make this report public as soon as I receive it." It is our understanding from speaking to the minister's office this morning that he has received the Dubin report. I wonder if he plans to make it public today, as he committed himself to doing last May?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before I make that report public, I want an opportunity to allow the Attorney General to have his people peruse the report to make sure there is nothing in it which may inadvertently affect the criminal investigation which is ongoing. The Attorney General advises me that this might take three or four more days, meaning that I should be in a position to make the Dubin report public, presuming there is no problem in terms of conflict, perhaps at the end of this week, or more likely next week.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the co-operation of all members in resuming their seats so I may establish who is presenting petitions, motions, etc.

3:20 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

DENTURE THERAPISTS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 217, An Act to amend the Denture Therapists Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the act to refer to denturists rather than to denture therapists, and would permit denturists to make, repair and market partial dentures without requiring supervision by a dentist.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is not a bill that is contentious. I would simply like to say that the city of Ottawa is moving in this area to recognize the right of all citizens to take part in municipal committees, and not just ratepayers. It is something which should be extended across the province, rather than something to be carried out and implemented on a case-by-case basis in one municipality.

I did not want the bill to pass without some comment on the second reading debate as well.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, prior to third reading, I should mention my colleague for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who piloted this bill through a very rigorous committee. The city of Ottawa and I are very grateful to my colleague for having accepted that responsibility. Of course, the city and the citizens are eternally grateful for the support of all colleagues in the House for this bill.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF PEMBROKE ACT

Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the Corporation of the City of Pembroke.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GLANWORTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cousens moved second reading of Bill Pr48, An Act to revive Glanworth Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BETH SHOLOM SYNAGOGUE ACT

Ms. Fish moved, on behalf of Mr. Rotenberg, second reading of Bill Pr51, An Act to revive Beth Sholom Synagogue.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PLANNING ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved third reading of Bill 159, An Act to revise the Planning Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the minister for being here for the third reading of this bill. I would like to start off my comments with a real compliment, because I know for a fact he was here for first reading. He was not here for second reading when it was debated. He was not at a single hearing of the committee over several months. He is here for third reading and he will have a chance to respond later on for a few minutes to the various comments. I wonder whether he would be here today if we had committee of the whole House.

Anyway, we are getting to the close of debate on a new Planning Act which has been several years in the making. I think it was back in 1977 that a report of the Planning Act Review Committee was received by the Minister of Housing at that time. That committee was chaired by Mr. Eli Comay, together with a few other consultants who prepared that report. That was followed by a government white paper and subsequent discussions with a lot of municipalities, consultants, planners and citizens of the province.

There are a number of sections in this bill we have serious reservations about. I might indicate we will be supporting it during third reading, but we have serious reservations with respect to a number of points in the bill, starting of course with one we have raised over and over again, the blatant exemption of Ontario Hydro from this bill.

Time after time, the government goes out of its way to defend Hydro and it has good reason to defend Hydro. It has much at stake in trying to defend Hydro and Hydro has gone out and made so many errors over the years. Here was an opportunity where it could have treated Hydro on the same basis as it treats other utilities such as Consumers' Gas and Union Gas or other kinds of utilities. It could have been treated on the same basis because it also provides forms of energy to this province, yet the government in its narrow wisdom found that it wanted to exempt Hydro from this bill.

There is no good reason why it should do so. It could not come forth with a good reason for it in the House or in committee. It could not come forth with a good reason in the House during second reading and it still has not come forward and presented a good reason for exempting Hydro. Yet it continually does it.

We hope that some time in the future, and I hope it is the not too distant future, we can rectify that omission or serious error. We on this side of the House would like to have that opportunity.

With respect to a number of other areas, I might point out that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has serious questions about this bill. It appreciated the process and the fact that it had an opportunity to make representations before the committee, and the fact that even when all the discussions, submissions and hearings had taken place the bill was referred to the association of municipalities for review.

The association came forth with a number of what I thought were excellent suggestions, but the government last September and October decided not to accept any of the major recommendations made. As a result, some of the suggestions that obviously would have strengthened this bill have been lacking.

3:30 p.m.

Let me speak for a moment about the definition of "official plan." There are those of us who felt the words, "having regard to" were not sufficiently strong when referring to social, economic and environmental concerns. In other words, the Planning Act deals primarily with physical concerns. We felt we should have, in the definition of "official plan," a stronger statement with respect to physical, economic and environmental matters. The government, using its majority in the committee, decided the words "having regard to" were sufficiently strong, and these particular areas of concern would be addressed just by having regard to them.

We suggested the government should come forth and cite some legal advice. We said, "Let us speak to the solicitor who is making this recommendation." Before the committee was a fine gentleman, Mr. Bell, who was the legal adviser to the committee and to the government on this matter. He did not give us sufficient opportunity to respond. When we asked that the lawyer who made these recommendations be brought before the committee so we could question him, the government turned down the request.

Another concern that was expressed by numerous bodies before the committee had to do with policy statements. As the members know, the cabinet will have an opportunity to put out, under the minister's signature, certain policy statements. We wanted some clarification of what these statements might be. They will come forth in regulations, but there are precedents for tabling regulations before a bill comes up for third reading. We wanted to have some of these policy statements, at least, made public before the bill came up for third reading, but that is not going to be the case.

Another point that was drawn to the committee's attention, and with which I have serious concern, is section 49 of the revised bill. We are talking here of the subdivision of land. We are talking about the centralization of certain responsibilities. Marshall McLuhan on one occasion said that one cannot decentralize centrally. What I fear is happening here is that the government is trying to decentralize the responsibility of planning, but it is trying to do it centrally. I also fear that what is happening here is a certain loss of local autonomy. When I talk about local autonomy I am talking about the lower-tier municipalities.

Take, for example, what is being proposed on page 52 of the revised act, in referring to consents to the subdivision of land. Clause 49(1)(a) says, "Where the land is situate within a regional municipality or is situate within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the district municipality of Muskoka or the county of Oxford, a consent given by the regional council, the Metropolitan council, the district council or the county council, as the case may be." The reference here is to giving certain planning authority to the county council.

I seriously question whether this is not a foot in the door as far as bringing regional government, in the planning sense, into the counties of this province. They are going to be hiring their professional planners, they are going to be having their official plans in the townships or the various municipalities within a particular area. The counties will have to have their official plans in conformity with the county official plan.

I am wondering whether the government, having been very embarrassed by bringing regional government into about 11 places in the province, are not trying to get their foot in the door as far as regional government is concerned in the various counties in this province. The minister might be able to assure me categorically that is not the case, but I wonder whether it is or not. I leave that so when the minister responds later on he can clarify that matter.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Certainly the last thing I want to do is embarrass any of my colleagues, but I do feel that when we are debating third reading of a bill such as the Planning Act, it might be advisable if some of the private conversations going on could be undertaken under the gallery, or in one of the anterooms.

I can hear the honourable member who is speaking, but he has spent a lot of time in getting this material ready, and I feel that the relevancy of this House is already in question. When the members themselves simply ignore it completely it is difficult for the rest of us to take it seriously.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Any conversations that are proceeding within this House, other than that of the honourable member for Waterloo North, will cease and we will allow the honourable member to continue.

Mr. Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for his consideration.

There were some changes in this act that were made during committee discussions, which I think were very fruitful. I particularly refer to a matter that I know my own council in the city of Waterloo was very upset about, and which was clarified during the discussions. This was addressed by a number of municipalities coming before the committee, and had to do with making the councils perform what they feared was going to be a judicial function.

They were going to have hearings. The way the legislation was originally interpreted was that if they had a hearing on a planning matter or a zoning change, they would not be able to even leave the hearing at any time -- to have a coffee, go to the washroom or anything. If they did they would not hear the full extent of the testimony before the committee. The minister will recall, having read a lot of the briefs that came before the committee and letters that I am sure came to his office, that the councils felt they would be performing a more judicial function than a legislative function.

I was glad to see, during the course of those hearings, that matter was clarified. The councils, under the new Planning Act, will be performing essentially a legitimate legislative function rather than a judicial function.

The bill also clarifies a number of areas with respect to hearings, either bylaw changes, official plans or some kind of zone changes, whatever the case may be. To that extent there are serious improvements to this act, and some of the time allotments for having these hearings or giving notice were either clarified or extended during the course of our hearings. I know in one case it was extended from 30 days to 60 days. So those points were well taken.

As a result of those hearings the bill has been improved. However I am still very upset with the government for not listening to some of the changes we recommended -- having to do with Hydro and other matters. They were certainly not adopted within the legislation.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we in this party think this legislation is important enough that we should make some pretty serious comment on it during third reading. As the member for Waterloo North indicated, it has been a long time in coming to fruition. In fact, it is about eight years ago that the exercise to bring about a new Planning Act started in an intense manner. The discussion regarding changes in the Planning Act went on for a long time before that with Design for Development, parts 1 and 2.

3:40 p.m.

During that period -- and I was involved in this not only in the House but in municipal government before that -- there were two main thrusts to the exercise. The first was that we ought to have a plan of development for the province. Whether it was to be a sort of official plan such as the municipalities had with maps or whether it was to be policy statements, it was agreed generally that the new Planning Act should clearly define provincial interests and establish the framework in which municipalities would work.

The second main thrust was that the municipalities should have a lot more autonomy than they have at present or had under the old act. It was felt the provincial government should not be dotting every "i" and crossing every "t"' with regard to planning matters but that the municipalities should be able to operate relatively independently. They should be able to make their own decisions and not have them upset within the framework of the provincial plan.

Of course, there were other issues and concerns that were not adequately dealt with in the old act, such as assuring full public input when zoning or official plans were being formulated. The old act perhaps did not adequately provide for the relationship between regional municipalities, whether they happened to be counties or local municipalities.

There was also some unhappiness generally among elected people with regard to planning boards having as much authority as they had. I think there was a general feeling on the part of public and municipalities alike that everybody in the planning process should be accountable to the public. But it is still true that the two main thrusts were, first, the matter of a general provincial plan where there were provincial interests and, second, greater autonomy for the municipalities within that plan.

I guess it is factual to state that the former Planning Act did not incorporate planning policy. It incorporated procedures for municipalities to develop official plans and zoning bylaws, but there were no priorities in the act and no designation of what could be considered provincial or, for that matter, regional or local interests.

I guess it is also true to say that the time, effort and cost that have gone into this new act are almost astronomical. Millions upon millions of both man-hours and dollars have been spent on it. As the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) mentioned, the Comay committee started reviewing the Planning Act in 1975. That report was tabled in June 1977. In May 1979 the government tabled its white paper on government policy with regard to the recommendations of the Comay report. Then in December 1979 there was a draft Planning Act, which was sent around to the municipalities and to anybody who was concerned about planning matters.

By spring 1981, after getting, I think, some 350 briefs with regard to the white paper, the first reading of Bill 159 took place. By the end of the 1981 session, of course, it had not been finished. There was a resolution to keep the bill alive, and hearings started early in 1982. The final hearings and clause by clause took place in the fall of this last year.

After all of that there is not an awful lot of fundamental difference between the new act and the old one. With all that effort and all those costs of assembling that army and mass of equipment we thought we were going to build a pyramid, and we have ended up with little more than an anthill.

We in this party are going to oppose this bill on third reading because it is a bad bill. There was an opportunity here to provide a plan for this province to do something quite fundamental about development in this province, and the government decided to opt out.

In some ways this bill is worse than the old act. For one thing it formalizes government intervention at will. In at least two instances in major hearings at Barrie on annexation proceedings, the then Treasurer and Minister of Governmental Affairs intervened without prior notice.

In the case of Durham, there was intervention to force them to incorporate an area for pits and quarries within their official plan, also without any advance warning whatsoever. The Ontario Municipal Board was hearing the pros and cons of that official plan at a public hearing, and a document was submitted to it by the government on its policies on pits and quarries. It stated that the official plan must incorporate an area for pits and quarries if such existed in the municipality. It changed the whole ball game. Now this simply formalizes that intervention without notice.

Another area where the bill is worse is that the government has abdicated its responsibility for setting an overall land use plan, either by the equivalent of an official plan for the province or by statements of principle. Certainly there has been a tremendous backward move by the government in this regard. I have here a document put out by the Ministry of Natural Resources under guidelines for land use planning -- I am not sure whether the present minister now sitting in the front row had a hand in this or not -- which makes such comments as the following:

"The objective is to co-ordinate the various land use programs of the ministry so that optimum use is made of the resources of this province.

"A proposed means of achieving this co-ordination is the strategic land use plan which is to be completed by April 1, 1975. The plan will indicate in broad and comprehensive terms how the ministry proposes to use or to influence the use of the lands and waters of Ontario to achieve its objectives.

"This strategic land use plan will provide a broad framework to guide the ministry's programs and will be the ministry's contribution to Design for Development.

"The first part of the strategic land use plan will be an overall provincial plan" -- this was tabled back in 1974 -- "where provincial policies are formulated and where areas of provincial significance are designated.

"Then, working within the overall provincial framework, policies will be refined and a broad land use plan will be prepared for each of the planning regions.

"The provincial plan together with a regional plan constitutes the strategic land use plan. It is assumed that all local plans of the ministry would then be required to conform to the strategic land use plan. Examples of areas which will be designated by the provincial plan are the Niagara Escarpment, the Rideau-Trent-Severn corridor, Algonquin, Quetico Park and any other large wildness area."

3:50 p.m.

In another section of that report under definition of a land use plan, it states: "A map, plus a written policy statement for each area designated on the map." Then they have a map which covers all Ontario and divides up the province.

That was the commitment given to the people of this province back in 1974. Today we have before us a new Planning Act which in no way provides a map or official plan. It does not even provide any policy statements for the direction of developments in this province. There is not a word about setting the priorities of land use, or whether the prime agricultural land is going to be preserved. It does not say whether we are going to permit pits and quarries, as are in existence in some municipalities, and whether they are going to be permitted to expand at will on to the very best agricultural land in this province. Government has totally opted-out of the responsibilities which it said were theirs back eight, 10, 12 years ago.

We in this party attempted to see that such a policy was written into the act, or at least we tried to ensure that it would be produced and determined by the Legislature. But we saw amendment after amendment to accomplish this defeated when we were in committee. Section 2 and 3 of Bill 159, which we have before us, ought to be the very guts -- if I may use that word -- of planning in this province. Section 2, under provincial administration, says: "The minister, in carrying out his responsibilities under this act, will have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

"(a) the protection of the natural environment, including the agricultural resource base of the province, and the management of natural resources;

"(b) the protection of features of significant natural, architectural, historical or archaeological interest;" and so on down for a total of about 12 items which the minister shall consider to be matters of provincial interest.

Then it goes on to state, "The minister, or the minister together with any other minister of the crown, may from time to time issue policy statements that have been approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on matters relating to municipal planning that in the opinion of the minister are of provincial interest." He may issue policy statements -- he is not required to -- about the state of eight, 10, 12 areas which even that government may think of provincial interest. When it comes to defining the interest or issuing a policy statement about priorities and how those interests shall be dealt with, the minister abdicates his responsibility.

As I said, we attempted to ensure they would be required to have those statements. We endeavoured to toughen up section 2 of that act. I moved in committee that section 2 of the bill be amended by deleting clause (a). That would be the one that I read which incorporated about three things together in the act: "The protection of the natural environment, including the agricultural resource base of the province, and the management of natural resources."

I moved that it be deleted and that the following clauses be added: "The protection, conservation and wise management of the environment; the protection of the prime and unique agricultural land; the wise management of natural resources." We wanted that written into the act but we were defeated. I regret to say the Liberals voted with the government when we tried to toughen up that section of the act.

We endeavoured to tighten up section 3. This is what we moved: "That subsection 1 of section 3 of the bill be deleted" -- that is where they may issue policy statements -- "and replaced by, 'Within one year of the proclamation of this act, the respective ministers of the crown shall table in the Legislature draft policy statements on subsections (a) to (i) of section 2 above, and any minister may table draft policy on other matters of provincial interest.'"

It seems so logical, if they mean what they say, that they would add a policy statement on all these sections which they declare are provincial interests. But no, when this motion came to a vote, it too was voted down by the combined members of the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

We went further and tried to require that any statements be tabled that were produced by the ministry. They produce one, two or three voluntarily. At least they ought to be tabled in the Legislature. After all, it is our view that planning is an important item. Provincial planning and policy with regard to preservation of our unique agricultural lands, the use of aggregate resources, the preservation of the escarpment and a great many other areas are pretty important.

No government should be able to make policy statements in secret. It should have to table them in this Legislature where they can be debated and where the public knows what the intention is. We also lost those amendments with the help of the official opposition. It is no wonder to me it is going to be supporting this bill.

Mr. Nixon: You voted for it on second reading.

Mr. Swart: No we did not. I guess the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was not here at that time. This party did not vote for this bill on second reading. We voted against it because we felt that in its form at that time, which had been little changed, it was not adequate to deal with planning in this province. We hoped to get some of these amendments through but we did not. Now we are voting against this bill on third reading.

The result of the defeat of our amendments has been that we may or may not get policy statements on matters which are rightly of provincial interest. There have been two which have been brought forward to my knowledge in the last five years -- the one on aggregate resources and the one on Food Land Guidelines.

There was a promise by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) that he would update the Food Land Guidelines but there is no way of our bringing that about if he decides not to do it because he is not required to do it.

The defeat of our amendment means there will be no debate in this Legislature about the important matters as to the planning and the preservation of prime agricultural land of this province. We in the Legislature probably will not even know anything about it until the policy has been produced by the government. Municipalities and others affected by the legislation may never know provincial policies or how or when the government will intervene in Ontario Municipal Board hearings.

If the minister had been in the committee he would have known all this. As the member for Waterloo North said, the minister did not consider it important enough even to interest himself on second reading or in the committee hearings, which spread over almost two years and which he did not bother to attend.

4 p.m.

Almost every organization, including the aggregate producers, was in favour of our amendment requiring the issuing of policy statements. They included the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Federation of Aggregate Studies and even the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, with whom we do not often consider we have particular rapport.

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) was there; he knows that to be the case. I think 90 to 95 per cent of all of those who presented briefs wanted the requirement that policy statements be issued. Yet that was defeated.

AMO, the senior association of municipalities in Ontario, was so disgusted that its final request was to throw out all of section 2. They said to us in committee, "If you are not going to explain your provincial interest, if you are not going to set a policy with regard to your provincial interest, then throw out the whole section." So they asked that section 2 be withdrawn.

I have copy of a letter from them, dated December 20, 1982, which they sent to the minister. It says:

"The board of directors of the Association of the Municipalities of Ontario passed the following motion at the meeting of November 25, 1982:

"'That the Association of Municipalities of Ontario communicate to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing its disappointment with Bill 159 as revised by the standing committee on general government for presentation to the Legislature; that Bill 159, in its present form, appears to have little regard for the issues identified by the association in its submissions to the government.'"

It is a pretty serious condemnation when the Association of Municipalities of Ontario sends a letter like that.

The letter continues:

"The association believes that its concerns have been expressed in a clear and rational manner but, with few exceptions, the major concerns of the association with respect to Bill 159 have not been addressed. The association believes that the provisions of Bill 159 will severely hamper municipalities in their ability to carry out this responsibility in the future."

The planning responsibility will hamper them. Here is a bill on which we spent millions of dollars and they say it will hamper, not improve, their situation. They go on to say:

"The following is a partial list of those issues which the Association of Municipalities of Ontario continues to have concerns with" -- and I will read members the first two:

"1. The discrepancy between what is considered to be provincial interest and what is set out as provincial policy," and

"2. The ability of the minister to intervene in municipal planning based on the perception that a particular municipal action will adversely affect a provincial interest which may or may not have been previously stated."

They are stating pretty clearly that what they object to is a statement of provincial interest with no elaboration. There are no policy statements on that. They do not know what it is in which the minister can intervene at any time.

I should read the rest of that letter into the record, but I know my colleague for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) wants to say something on this matter; so I am not going to take up much more time. However, I want to point out another area of this bill to which this party has serious objection.

We proposed an amendment that all counties and separated cities should be required to produce official plans. How can we have a planning policy for Ontario if it does not cover the whole province? How are we going to preserve our prime agricultural land? There is no plan or policy for that area. How are we going to stop the decimation of this agricultural or recreational land, whatever the case may be, with regard to pits and quarries if we have no plan in that area?

I checked today, and a senior person in the ministry told me that only four of 25 counties have official plans. About half of the other counties have a planning department and therefore have some handle on it, but only four of 25 counties have official plans.

About 575 municipalities have official plans of some kind, but the remainder either are in the process of getting them or have no interest in having official plans. How are we going to have an overall plan for this province to direct these elements to preserve those things that we want to preserve for future generations if we do not have an official plan? What a drawback that is, what an abdication from that original proposal back in 1974.

We object to the fact that subsection 34(1) of the proposal under the act would appear to give the power to municipalities to prevent pits and quarries being located within their municipalities. Under section 34 of the act one would think there was no question that municipalities would have the power to pass legislation or to prohibit the pits and quarries within their municipalities; but in fact they have no such power whatsoever as it becomes clear when one looks at that section of the act.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to bring to the honourable member's attention that while we are on third reading we should be concentrating on whether the bill should proceed for third reading and not reviewing each section of the legislation.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am only dealing with five major principles in which we believe the bill is so faulty that it cannot be supported. I am not going into individual sections, but I am sure you will agree that there is an obligation on us to point out the reasons why we cannot support the bill.

It is only matters of principle that I am dealing with at the time. One matter of principle is the inadequacy of the bill in giving municipalities the right to prohibit pits and quarries from springing up all over their municipalities. Subsection 34 says: "Zoning bylaws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities. The making, establishment or operation of a pit or quarry shall be deemed to be a use of land for the purpose of paragraph 1 of subsection 1."

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I always find the member for Welland-Thorold interesting when he is talking, but this is not debate in principle. He is asking for your permission, sir, to refer to the five great principles of planning, whatever they may be.

He has corrected me, and he is right, the New Democratic Party voted against it. The reason I thought that perhaps it had not was that when I looked up the records back in 1981 there were only 13 NDP members present for the vote. But in looking at that occasion, the honourable member spoke at length on the principle of the bill on second reading.

We are now at third reading. The member and his House leader did not see fit to move this bill into committee of the whole House. It was the understanding that after the full and complete hearings that were undertaken, in which they lost some of their amendments and we lost some of ours and won a couple, we were now debating whether to read the bill a third time.

Surely it is not in the best interests of the efficient operation of this House that we go over the whole matter a second, third and ninth time. This is not second reading; the NDP voted against it and lost that vote, having 13 members present at the time. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I support your contention.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: What does the member for Welland-Thorold think?

Mr. Swart: I think perhaps the Liberal caucus is a little sensitive on this matter when it realizes what it has supported and what it is going to be supporting on this third reading.

I say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), it may be that the matter of pits and quarries is not one of real principle to him as to the location of pits and quarries, where they are going to be located or whether they are going to be permitted. I suggest to him that there are many people in this province who have a real concern. He should attend some of the meetings in places where it is proposed that pits and quarries be located, and he would know.

Even though the act states that one may pass zoning bylaws to prohibit the location of pits and quarries, the policy statement that was brought out secretly by the government of this province states, "The identification, designation and protection of high aggregate resources potential should occur jointly by regional county and local official plans. The use of the land which would preclude the possible future extraction of aggregates should not be permitted in required areas of high aggregate resources potential."

That is the policy statement. That was sent to the Ontario Municipal Board when it was considering the Durham regional plan. Durham did not even know it existed. It had never been made public. The OMB said, "On the basis of this government policy you must include areas" -- and it was a substantial area -- "for the extraction of aggregate resources."

We have to vote against this bill because it does not give adequate protection to municipalities for that purpose, Mr. Speaker. You will understand the seriousness of this matter coming from an area, as you do, where there are aggregate resources. I am sure, when it comes to the vote, you will be casting your vote against it too.

I had written this down because, before I came into this House, I did not expect to see the minister here this afternoon. He had not attended any of the hearings or shown any interest whatsoever in this bill for the past two or three years.

We have a bill before us with these faults. We have a minister, as has been stated two or three times by myself and by the previous speaker, who did not bother to attend any of the lengthy hearings to listen to the views of the citizens of this province, significant and important organizations in this province, on both sides of this issue, whether it was the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario or the Federation of Aggregate Studies in opposition to this, or the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society or the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations.

There were literally hundreds of groups there. The minister never heard them, but now he is here to push through the third reading of this bill without ever having heard or answered the questions of these people. It is no wonder the bill is in practically the same condition as it was when it first came to this House. It is no wonder this bill is in practically the same condition as the previous bill.

This was an opportunity for this government to do some real land use planning, to define clearly provincial responsibilities and municipal responsibilities, to determine the priorities of land use in this province, to preserve our prime agricultural land for future generations and to determine where we were going to permit aggregates to be extracted and where we were going to permit these kinds of holes to go into the ground and desecrate our communities. All that could have been dealt with in this bill, but it was not and is not.

For all these reasons and more, which will be enunciated by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), we are going to vote against this bill and are proud that we are going to do so.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to third reading of Bill 159, An Act to revise the Planning Act. I did have the opportunity to sit in on some of the committee hearings related to the discussions on the Planning Act. In fact, I was a member of the standing committee on general government dealing with it on different occasions, because the previous House leaders had said the previous members of the committee would deal with it in that committee.

I did have some input into it, and I remember endorsing some of the resolutions or amendments put forward by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). I also know that the members of the government party bent over backwards in many instances to go along with amendments by the opposition parties to make it perhaps a better bill. I do not want to leave the impression here that they did not consider these amendments, because it was dealt with at some length in committee. I did not attend all the meetings, because I had to fill in when somebody else from our party could not be in the committee. So I just leave that with members.

The Planning Act has been some eight years on the drawing board. It has always been a problem of local municipalities that local authorities should be responsible for planning. This bill, as I interpret it, does give this responsibility to local government; that is, the municipalities. They will have the say in it, and there will be no more planning boards, but they can appoint somebody to act as an adviser to council in certain matters. I think that is good; it gives the option to local councils.

The key thing here is removing some of the minister's powers to local councils. I concur with this, and our party supports the principle that it is time they looked after local planning matters. I think this is the key to it, although I do have some reservations. I attended a meeting the other night in Fort Erie that had to do with planning in government policy. I just want to bring to the members' attention some of the conflicting government policies that there may be.

The member for Welland-Thorold is quite correct. I look at the Niagara District Land Use Strategy, a report that has come out within the past year. The Niagara district land use policy relates to the aggregate industry; it relates to the pits and quarries, new policies put out by the minister responsible for the Ministry of Natural Resources. Under the Ministry of Natural Resources you have flood plain mapping, which is another area of provincial policy without consultation with the local municipalities.

The Deputy Speaker: Now you be careful, because the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) may be standing up on a point of order to complain that you are not speaking to third reading of this bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to your attention the conflicting issues with respect to planning as it relates to the powers of local council and the powers of that minister.

We had the Niagara Escarpment plan. Then lo and behold, just within the past week, some other government policy came through; the Ministry of the Environment has come in and said the Ontario Waste Management Corp. could well establish a toxic waste disposal site in the Niagara Peninsula.

The point I am trying to drive home is that the Niagara region official plan and the local municipalities' official plans had been pretty well adopted by the ministry. The Ontario Municipal Board has had hearings on them. The policy in that area has been pretty well confirmed now. But all of a sudden we find that the minister is coming in with new policies and is going to alter the official plans of the municipalities at considerable cost to them. A time of restraint is no time to bring in some of these policies. The guidelines should have been there.

I mentioned flood plain mapping. Just recently, by resolution, flood plain mapping came to Douglastown, which is part of the town of Fort Erie, and specifically to Black Creek. It is a small stream that enters the Niagara River. All of a sudden the official plan changes, because the restrictions under the flood plain mapping restrict building along a watershed or a creek; they may be considered as hazardous lands because property damage might result.

4:20 p.m.

Previously in the official plan of the town of Fort Erie, Philips Planning from Burlington were the consultants for the town. As I understand it, they would send out all the different proposals under that official municipal plan to all the different ministries' agencies. I cannot recall at that hearing that any of them had any input into that official plan.

All of a sudden, the flood plain mapping has come in. The town just recently spent about $4 million on a sewer scheme for that little community, part of the town of Fort Erie, to put in services for about 50 or 60 existing homes plus another 80 or 90 homes that should be built in that area. The municipality just installed water services within the past two or three years in that area.

Lo and behold, the Ministry of Natural Resources comes in with flood plain mapping and says: "No more development in that area. You cannot issue any more permits, because it is designated under flood plain mapping."

The Deputy Speaker: Tie this in to Bill 159.

Mr. Haggerty: I am tying it in, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the cost involved when all of a sudden we have the ministry's agency telling us this is what applies.

Perhaps five or six years ago, they had an opportunity to raise objections to that proposed expansion of Fort Erie and to providing services there. It seems damned near ridiculous to cut off building permits there now. Who is going to pay for all those hard-core services? That is not the way to bring about planning.

I concur with the minister about one of the proposals, which is that these government agencies, whatever they may be, must now confer with municipalities. They had that power before but for some unknown reason, the government's agencies, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and all those agencies, did not have any input into it.

Now the problem is, what is Fort Erie to do with that community? Who is going to pick up the cost for those services?

To my knowledge, it is an area that has not flooded for centuries. The criterion used for flood plain mapping was Hurricane Hazel, which related to Holland Marsh and Bradford Marsh. As far as I am concerned, marshland is wetlands anyway, but they used that criterion. Yet the same criterion does not apply to the Niagara River, which this stream empties into.

I cannot understand the policy under this flood plain mapping. I think it is good; I like to see water management control. All I am saying is that there should have been further consultation with the municipalities before flood plain mapping was brought in under the act.

When I look at the authority and power of the Ministry of Natural Resources, I think the Planning Act should be under that ministry because it does change the present official plans in every municipality under the aggregate industry. The new policy is put out by the ministry.

The member for Welland-Thorold is quite right. I believe there is only one quarry there, but in the riding of Erie there are about three or four quarries. As soon as they applied the brakes on the Niagara Escarpment, the aggregate industry bought up all the small quarries in Erie and expanded their operations. I do not know what they are going to do with it. Port Colborne cannot expand too much, because they have nothing but quarries on each side of them. Fort Erie will be another one. They used to export quite a bit to the United States.

I know time is important, but I just wanted to bring the minister's attention to the problems that can exist under this new Planning Act and under the existing government policies which come out too late. Who is going to pay for all the amendments to the official plan when they bring out policies like that? They had an opportunity to do it in the Niagara region.

I bring it to the attention of members here because they could have the same problem under the act. The minister says he can implement planning in other counties, separate cities and other municipalities. It is good that he will bring them in under some form of planning. We all endorse some type of planning to have proper growth and to protect the environment and the health and safety of the community. I wanted to bring that to the minister's attention in so far as it affects the town of Fort Erie.

This bill and related government policies could be costly to any municipality that has an official plan, because it means changes in the official plan and perhaps further hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board. In my opinion, there will be a field day for planners and lawyers.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against this bill, because I am very disappointed in the final results.

I spent a great number of hours on the committee reviewing this bill in the clause-by-clause stages. Our party moved a great number of amendments, but I think only three or four of them were accepted. When we voted against this bill on second reading, we took the position that if we did not succeed in radically changing its thrust, we would be compelled to vote against it on third reading.

It is rather disheartening that seven years of study, review, draft bills and, finally, committee hearings which lasted over a year have resulted in a bill that reflects a strictly Tory approach to land use planning. That approach is to keep as much power as possible in the minister's hands and to give as little as possible to the local governments.

I know the minister will say that the objectives were the opposite; that there are provisions for delegating matters to the local governments. But the bill keeps the power in the minister's hands to take back any delegation that he gives, and there are no criteria on which he bases his delegation. There is no list of requirements that a municipality with an official plan might fulfil so as to receive delegation of certain of the minister's powers. So it is still very much the minister's bill, with the minister in control over land use planning in this province.

In our view, this bill does not go far enough in changing the balance of power between local governments and the province. It does not stop the loss of prime agricultural land. It does not stop the demolition of affordable housing to make way for luxury apartments. It does not stop the erosion of neighbourhoods.

This bill also does not promote the objectives of good land use planning. The objectives have been modified over the years, because in the past it used to be thought that if one simply provided for the physical development of a municipality with a good arrangement of housing and businesses and sharing of different land uses, that was sufficient. But now we expect land use planning to be used to promote public transit, economic development, social equality, environmental protection and energy efficiency.

Those things are not sufficiently promoted by this legislation. Nor does it involve the public or the Legislature in the development of provincial policy planning statements. That is the basis on which the land use policies of this province will be based.

It does provide for the issuing of provincial policy statements, but it is not mandatory on the minister to do so. While the public may send in comments to the minister, there is no mandatory public input in them, and there is no requirement for a statement before the minister exercises his right to declare a provincial interest.

4:30 p.m.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario shares my disappointment with this bill. They said in a letter to the minister dated December 3, 1982: "The results of the process have been very disappointing. The association believes that its concerns have been expressed in a clear and rational manner but, with few exceptions, the major concerns of the association with respect to Bill 159 have not been addressed."

When a bill which went through all the review processes and had a great deal of input from AMO receives this kind of report card, there is something wrong with the bill. I would like to list a few of the areas where the bill leaves too much power in the hands of the minister. First, his power to declare anything a matter of provincial interest and to intervene in municipal planning is definitely strengthened by this bill. Second, his power to delegate authority but to withdraw that delegation on what amounts to a whim, or at least he does not have to have any justification for withdrawing the authority, nor does he have any criteria on which the authority is granted.

Third, the removal of the time limitation for the minister responding to a request for a referral to the Ontario Municipal Board. That was in the original bill but it is not in the final version. It could mean serious delays when a person or persons wish to refer a matter about an official plan or an amendment to the OMB.

Fourth, the sections dealing with community improvement plans are still unsatisfactory, although I will agree that there was considerable movement in the committee on this subject. The original version was going to put the community improvement plans in a complete straitjacket. I think they are still subject to a great deal more detailed regulation than they were under the present act. Most municipalities will tell the minister that the present act was working well. There was a great deal of consultation with the public at all stages. It was a somewhat flexible consultation; each municipality did it its own way.

In the new bill there is a provision that amendments to community improvement plans can have this kind of flexibility if the municipality puts into its official plan the proposals for public participation and public input. If they do not do that then they have to go through all the rigmarole of public hearings and public input that is required for an official plan. I think we need that for approval of an official plan. In all cases one must balance the need for public participation with the need for not delaying every step in any process by requirements for public hearings on all amendments.

So the distinction between one route for amendments and another route for official plans is probably useful. But the community improvement plans are still too much within a straitjacket. They should be encouraged to consult with the public but to move ahead with the process as well.

Some of these points I have been raising are some that AMO has included in its letter to the minister. I think it indicates some of the reasons for both their unhappiness with the bill and our unhappiness.

I also want to refer to what I think is a very important part of the bill, that is, the definition of an official plan. I think the official plan is the keystone of our land use planning. We hope that all municipalities and all regional bodies will adopt official plans. The present act says that an official plan "means a program or policy or any part thereof designed to secure the health, safety, convenience or welfare of the inhabitants of the area."

The new act in its original form said that an official plan means, "a document approved by the minister containing objectives and policies established primarily to provide guidance for the physical development of a municipality or a part thereof or an area that is without municipal organization while having regard to such social, economic and environmental matters as appear to be relevant."

The present definition of official plan is much better than the one that was put into Bill 159 when it appeared before us. Particularly, I feel that the restriction of official plans to physical development may be interpreted by courts to rule out dealing with social, economic and environmental matters through official plans. However, the history of attempted amendments to the original version is really a charade of attempts to change wording in order to get around the deficiencies of the definition.

There was first an amendment by a Conservative member of the committee, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). There was an amendment to that amendment by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) which tried to say that an official plan may include relevant social, economic and environmental matters, not just ones that appear to be relevant, but may include relevant ones. That was passed by the committee, but then in the last hearing or two before this bill was reported to the House, lo and behold, a government member brought in an amendment that was really a reversion to the original definition.

The committee went full circle and came back with an amendment that means exactly the same thing as the original version and does not meet the request of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and our party that the definition be broadened to make sure that it is not simply a matter of having regard to economic matters but that it is a matter of taking into account and including economic, social and environmental matters in official plans. The repudiation of the work of the committee by the government members is something that I found very disappointing. Also it was a repudiation of AMO's recommendations for changing that definition.

I want to refer to a few areas where the bill does not promote the land use objectives to which this government gives lipservice. For example, my colleague has dealt with the difficulties of preserving agricultural land under the zoning provisions that are in this bill. There must be a much stronger statement of the desirability of preserving agricultural land and a limitation on the way it can be dealt away to developers; and second, the degree to which the environmental concerns resulting from the operation of pits and quarries are considered under official plans.

4:40 p.m.

What has happened is that the minister goes for local autonomy when it is a matter of hot potatoes. He ducks out from doing anything to protect the environment from the encroachment of pits and quarries or from the encroachment upon his government in licensing pits and quarries. He ducks out when it is a matter of preserving agricultural land. In the area of housing and preservation of housing stock, particularly of low-rental housing, the minister ducks out.

My colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) moved an amendment that demolition control be given to local governments as long as the municipality was under rent review, which indicates there was a shortage of affordable housing. But that kind of demolition control, which would prevent the demolition of apartment buildings if a municipality so decided, was not given to the municipalities. The same holds true of the enforcement of property building standards by permitting the tenant to pay his rent to the municipal treasurer if work orders were not complied with. We found in the city of Toronto that the enforcement of building standards seems to be the only way to get action, but it is not allowed across the province to all municipalities.

With regard to the requirement on subdividers to provide municipal services, there is no reference to the need for developing public transit as part of the obligations to be placed on them.

With regard to the development of recreational property, the bill limits the amount a developer can be asked to dedicate to park land to two per cent for industrial and commercial properties and five per cent for residential properties. In my opinion, this limits the power of the municipality to decide what the recreational needs of the community are and to ask the developers to contribute an adequate share towards those recreational needs. Once again, local autonomy has been restricted in this area where the municipality might ask the developers to provide a bigger amount in order to look after the needs of the community and the local authorities cannot go beyond those limits.

A few changes did result from the committee hearings, and I do appreciate that in some cases the ministry tried to meet the objections of the people from all parties on the committee. One rather interesting change is that in giving the minister the power to reject the request for a hearing on an amendment to an official plan, the original clause said that the minister could reject the request that it be referred to the municipal board if, in his opinion, it would serve no useful purpose, or the request was made only for the purpose of delay.

After considerable debate, we convinced the minister that giving him the power to reject anything on the grounds that it would serve no useful purpose was giving him carte blanche to reject anything he did not like. So that phrase was dropped and the phrase was put in that anything "frivolous or vexatious" could be refused. I am not quite sure how one would define that, but at least we have restricted the power to reject the request for a hearing.

With regard to the exemption of Hydro from the application of the act, we objected to that from the very beginning, and a compromise was finally adopted that Hydro operations would not be exempted if they had gone through an environmental assessment process. However, there is still an argument for them also going through a planning approval process since different aspects may be considered under the Environmental Assessment Act than under the Planning Act.

We have our Consolidated Hearings Act, which would have brought the two hearings together, so we still think it is an abuse of the government's power to exempt Hydro from almost every law that we have and let it run its affairs without having to follow the procedures that apply to other corporations.

These are just some of the reasons we should not support this bill on third reading. It will probably not be changed for a good many years unless we change the government; in which case I think it would be high on the agenda, but perhaps if we defeat it today we can get it to come back with a bill that will be more acceptable to municipal organizations and to the general public who are concerned about land use policies and to the electorate the government will have to face in a couple of years.

If it faces it with this kind of land use legislation on the books, it will be seen as a government which does not really believe in the protection of our land and the protection of the conflicting interests of residents versus developers and inadequate public input into the development of provincial land use policies.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Before the honourable member begins, if I may just comment, the chair is anxious to follow traditions of the House and when we get to third reading, after having had second reading and committee debate clause by clause, the normal effect is to move for third reading, so the debate is generally directed towards approval of third reading of the report.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, since we have covered quite a number of specific items I will take your advice to heart and speak on the overall reasons why we intend to support this legislation.

Looking back to 1966, that year is taken as the birth of Ontario's regional development program and from that time on some very extensive plans were made for a grand scheme for planning the development of Ontario. There was a white paper emphasizing planning as well as economic development and it explicitly gave social, physical and environmental concerns an equal place with economic considerations. A number of other plans were developed from that, breaking the province into eight areas and then finally breaking it down into three areas.

As time went on, the government apparently lost its heart when it realized the job was more difficult than it had anticipated and so it retreated. I guess it has been retreating somewhat ever since.

I will read a chapter here written by N. H. Richards, one of the people who is well known for his work in planning in Ontario. This chapter says: "Thus the original Design for Development program experienced at least three major changes in direction in 10 years. In the early days, meticulous, factual analyses were not adequately matched by the priority objectives nor by realistic understanding and marshalling of the needs of achieving them.

"This area was followed by one of preoccupation with immediate, pragmatic and often project-specific activities. A third phase saw a perhaps overambitious but in any case abortive attempt to move towards a comprehensive provincial plan strategy.

4:50 p.m.

"This in turn was followed by an approach to regional development in which the strategy of ends and means was replaced by what we called the pot-luck strategy. If by the term 'regional development program' we mean a coherent set of undertakings based on thorough and comprehensive analysis and intended to achieve specific objectives at regional level, it is clear that in 10 years this was never fully achieved in Ontario."

I think that is where we probably found ourselves at the beginning of this hearing in trying to come up with an improved Planning Act, and I would submit that what we have before us is probably a fairly good cookbook, a set of designs to achieve planning. It is pragmatic more than it is idealistic, because the government has realized through its past experience that it did not have the nerve or the will to carry it through with comprehensive planning.

We have seen this in so many areas in Ontario, and this is the reason that today we have this great scandal on our hands in the matter of a number of trust companies. We had an act that should have prevented it, but the government kept its hands off and now we have the tremendous problem that we have today.

We have a bill here that has a hands-on approach. It has a means of achieving good planning in Ontario. I might liken it to a computer. A person buys a mainframe computer that has all the keys and all the mechanisms to sort these things out; they are all in the act. Then to make it work we buy the software, a set of discs that we insert into the machine, which we buy for specific purposes. We can buy one to keep payroll, one to keep inventory and we might have one to keep accounts payable, accounts receivable and so on.

That is pretty well what I think we have here. We have the mainframe, but we lack the software. This may be the wrong analogy, because what we really want in more specific terms is the hardware, and that has to come from the ministry to plug in to that mainframe computer, to plug in from time to time those matters of provincial policy.

I would say at this point that I support the legislation because I really do not believe in my heart that anyone has the great foresight to look ahead and determine that 30, 40 or even 50 years from now -- or even 10 years from now -- things are going to unfold in the great economic and social plan that our friends to the left might wish to see as the ideal.

I just call the members' attention to the great revolution in economic matters that is going on in the world today. We have lost our former predominance in the natural resources that we have in this province, and the great plans we had for energy projects and so on all have gone awry. I think we need a system of making these adjustments, plugging in these adjustments, and we have that in the act through the provincial interest. But the question in my mind is whether or not this government has the will to do that.

We listened very carefully to the New Democratic Party members and they were quite persuasive in a number of matters. One of them was that we should set out that we want item A, we want item B, we want item C. The government's idea on the other side was that if we only go to C, we automatically cut off D, E, F and the rest of the alphabet and it will be years before this act is revised and we will be able to plug those matters in again. It sounded like a reasonable argument. It had the opportunity to plug those things in if it is a matter of provincial interest.

It comes down to whether the government has the courage to carry out a good planning exercise in Ontario. That comes down to every one of us in this chamber, to government members and opposition members, to make up our minds now to make a further promise to ourselves that we will carry out our functions as opposition or government members, to see that the government does do that.

It may find in time there are different people in different roles. I cannot forecast what is going to happen but there are those possibilities and they are looming greater every day. I say advisedly to the members on the opposite side, they may be the people who are rising in their seats with indignation at some point to see whether these provisions are carried out.

I want to mention a gross inequity in the past that occurred in my riding; there were really two of them. Any visitor to Kent county in the last couple of years, if he stepped off the plane or train and was a stranger to the community, had heard of the notoriety of Kent county. He would say immediately, "Take me to your dump and take me to your airport." I do not want to spend much time on the dump because matters there have been resolved.

Because we have roughly 1,000 municipal airports in this province, the province did not see fit to regulate the height of buildings around those airports. We had a local farmer who decided to take matters into his own hands. Only history will determine how that man will be regarded. Some people see him as an incarnation of something unpleasant. Others see him as a courageous person who has stood up for his rights.

He partly blocked the use of that airport. We are going to find that the city of Chatham will probably have to spend very large sums of money to resolve that situation. I hate to raise any figures; these matters are before the court so I will not raise any figures. It was a case where the government said: "We know that problem is out there but no one is pushing it. Let us just stand back and let it find its own natural course." So one of our farmers has put it to the government and perhaps in the end we will owe him some debt of gratitude for having brought this matter to a head.

Those are the types of things that are going to be in the government's power under this act to make it a success or a failure. In this party we hope it is a success. We intend to see it is a success because we are going to be vigilant. We are going to press the government and we are going to require that it attend to all those matters that have been raised here today.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to make a few remarks on third reading of this bill and to offer some insight into my part as the minister.

I acknowledge that I did not attend the meetings and that was a responsibility left with my parliamentary assistant (Mr. Rotenberg). It is intriguing that on many occasions a minister is criticized because his parliamentary assistant is not given some responsibilities to carry out in a positive fashion, either inside or outside this Legislature.

5 p.m.

In this case, I acknowledge completely the time and effort of my parliamentary assistant in taking this bill forward through committee. He is in Israel at this time on family matters. Just a few days ago, he had a grandson, and he has gone over there to be with the family for the religious ceremonies of the Jewish faith. I acknowledge his absence from the chamber this afternoon and recognize that he is where he is as an important part of his religious belief. He has done an excellent job.

I want to go one step further and say to all the members of this Legislature, and to the members of all parties who served on the committee, that it is rewarding, when one reads over the minutes of the various meetings, to see the time and effort and the expression of opinion that was given by members of the various parties in relation to this act. I think that is proof that the committee system works very effectively in trying to produce for this province a piece of legislation that is nonpartisan. I honestly believe that. I believe we are all seeking the best possible Planning Act to serve this province effectively in its development over the next number of years.

Because we have brought in a new act in this Legislature and it gets third and final reading and royal assent, it is foolish to believe there will not be amendments to it. Wisdom tells us there will be amendments. Things will change, ideas will come forward, even though we have spent eight full years in bringing this act to this place, all the way from Don Irvine to the late John Rhodes and through various other ministers.

I recognize the part the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has played, but it is not going to succeed in every one of its wishes. I am not suggesting it will get 100 per cent, but I welcome its input. We have acknowledged its letters and, indeed, some of the things it has asked for over the period of this bill have been recognized and amendments have been made to accede to its wishes.

If 35, 37 or 40 years from now people can look back and say this act has fulfilled what we believed to be the essential requirements for developing this province further, we will have succeeded. I make reference to the fact that the original Planning Act of this province was brought in in 1946 and there have been a number of amendments to it.

I understand the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) when he says there are a number of new things in this bill that have a similar character to things in the old Planning Act. That is absolutely right. I acknowledge that. Those things happen to work effectively and it is the wish of most people that they should remain. Just because they are old is no reason for throwing them out. They have helped to develop this province very effectively to this point.

That is not to say that there are not some very drastic differences of opinion on how planning is to function. As long as we have the legal profession in place I suppose we will have those who are very much in favour of what a municipality or a developer wants to do and those who are very much opposed. They are trying to succeed in what they believe to be the development and advancement of the economics of a particular community.

That is what the Planning Act is here for. The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) said it is a cookbook. The regulation is to guide and to assist. I want to make it very clear that, in the time it will be in this Legislature and in days to come, there will likely be proposals made by some for amendments they think will strengthen and assist municipalities in their opportunity to expand their communities.

As minister, I believe this bill gives more authority to the municipalities than they had in the past. It is interesting, however, that as we have proceeded in that direction we now have some who are suspicious of a government giving municipalities much more authority in the field of planning because they believe municipalities in some cases -- and I am not expressing my view -- are going to abuse them or be very difficult to work with.

I have said in meetings with the development industry, planning associations, the legal association and others that we have given this responsibility to the municipalities because we believe they are competent and capable of handling it. We believe over the last 35 or 37 years, municipalities have advanced remarkably in the quality of personnel they have in the field of planning. They are working on putting official plans into being. The member for Welland-Thorold says only a minimal number of counties have an official plan at the moment, but there are a very substantial number that are in the process of developing official plans. The province, through the general taxpayer, has afforded them some financial help to develop their planning -- and rightly so.

I am not going to try to respond to all of the comments made by the various members this afternoon, because comments for or against the bill have been made over the last eight years. Some were made through the 1,200 or 1,300 briefs presented to the committee, some were made during the fall of 1982 during the committee meetings and some at the time amendments were proposed to the bill. They were answered by my parliamentary assistant and by various other legal counsel that we had in attendance at the time, so they do not need a further explanation by the minister.

Recommendations, views and suggestions will always be taken under consideration. If we believe it to be in the best interests of the bill and strengthens it, regardless of who proposes the amendment at whatever time in the future, if it advances the purpose of development in this province in better land use, this government will be prepared and ready to accept it, albeit possibly with some slight change when it comes forward.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to express thanks again to all of the ministers who reported for Housing in this province over the last seven or eight years. I would thank the late John Rhodes for the time and effort he spent on this act and former minister Don Irvine for the time and effort he spent in establishing the committee that did the first review.

Then I look to the various people within the staff of the ministry and the government of this province: to Milt Farrow, the assistant deputy minister, who has been an important part of this whole development and to Wojciech Wronski, the former assistant deputy minister, who now is in the private sector. I look at Keith Bain and Gerry Fitzpatrick and to a number of our other civil servants.

I think we would all have to admit very openly and recognize that these people were available to hear advice, views and suggestions from members of the opposition parties on many, many occasions. They may not always have been receptive to a member's proposal, but they were prepared to sit and discuss it with him or her. They were prepared to try to analyse exactly what it would mean if the particular amendment or change was made to the act.

I want to thank all of them publicly. The staff in the Speaker's gallery and under the back gallery this afternoon -- to all of them I express my sincere thank-you for the time and effort in the days of confusion and chaos. Indeed, they sat with me on many days in my office when members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and of various municipalities and professional organizations would come in. It was constant give-and-take as to their views and relationship to what was being proposed as an act. As a result of those meetings in the minister's office and in the various boardrooms of the ministry, changes were made to this bill even before it was brought to the Legislature or to committee.

Beginning on February 3, a series of meetings will be held across the province to explain the new act to municipal council members and staff. In order to give the municipalities time to become familiar with the new legislation, except for section 40, it will be proclaimed some time around August 1, 1983. Section 40, dealing with the site plan control, will not come into effect for one year in order to allow municipalities ample time to prepare and have approved the required official plan policies.

In conclusion, I thank all of the members in the last three parliaments of the Legislature, because that is how long it has taken. We have gone through three provincial elections since this first came forward to public presentation and discussion. To the members that served in 1975, in 1977 and 1979 and in the current session, I thank them for their participation. As a result of it I think this act will serve this province and its municipalities very effectively in its land use and economic development over the next number of years.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that 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.

I am seeking direction from members of the House. I notice on the Order Paper that the next bill ordered for third reading is Bill 194. Is there the possibility of stacking this vote and having two votes at the hour of six? If we cannot do it I guess we will call in the members.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to stack it. I just want to inform you we do not intend to have a division on Bill 194 because of the compendium bill. If you want to take the vote now that is satisfactory with us. We will vote against it by a voice vote. We are quite prepared to stack it if you wish.

The Deputy Speaker: My understanding is there will not be much to debate on Bill 194 so we will call in the members.

5:40 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Bennett's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Boudria, Bradley, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn;

Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Roy, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston; Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor. G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Stokes, Swart.

Ayes 86; nays 18.

PLANNING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved third reading of Bill 194, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of Planning and related Matters.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved second reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow the regional municipality of Waterloo to operate the Don Pioneer Village and the Joseph Schneider House, two important --

Some hon. members: Doon.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: What did I say?

Some hon. members: Don.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We will invite the rest of them to come to eastern Ontario. They are strangers down there most of the time, are they not? They are afraid to come down and find out what good Tory country looks like. I see their leader is going down to his baptism at the Ottawa Board of Trade shortly.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is dealing with his territory.

It will also transfer the land, buildings and effects of the pioneer village to the region. The proposed date of transfer in the printed bill is January 1, 1983. Since this is now impossible, I will be proposing an amendment in committee that the transfer take effect on March 1, 1983.

The bill implements the recommendations of the review committee established to discuss the future of Doon. Is that correct? Thank you. I appreciate being corrected. It shows the members I did listen for a change.

Mr. Roy: Stick around and you will learn English yet.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At least mine is understood in the riding of Ottawa South. I have been able to get elected a few times down there.

Mr. Roy: Stick around and we will give you a bit of French too.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would not resist that opportunity, particularly looking at some of the member's teachers.

Mr. Van Horne: What are you running for?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Oh no, I would not want to get into more trouble this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see this covered in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you are right. This implements the recommendations of the Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation and the Grand River Conservation Authority. It is also one of the recommendations of the 1979 report of the Waterloo regional review commission prepared by William H. Palmer.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I am pleased to support this bill. I am doubly pleased the minister finally realized how to pronounce "Doon." As the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, I would have thought he travelled through the great country of Kitchener-Waterloo and Waterloo region at some time and learned that.

Nevertheless, the region has been somewhat anxious to have this bill passed by this Legislature. We thought it might have been passed last December but for some reason it was delayed. We now have the opportunity of supporting it and we will so do.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, our caucus is pleased to accede to the request from the regional municipality of Waterloo and we too will support the bill which is before the House and the amendment which is being proposed.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, as the member in whose riding the Doon Pioneer Village is situated, I want to support the legislation and point out to the minister it is our sincere hope that the operation of Doon Pioneer Village, which is a very good operation, will be able to function much more smoothly and efficiently in the future than it would have otherwise. It is a good move and we support it.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to support this bill, being a resident of the regional municipality of Waterloo and representing the great riding of Cambridge which exists therein. The Doon Pioneer Village is a very important link with the history of the entire region and merits everyone's support.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as the remaining one of the four members for Waterloo region I presume that I too should rise to support this bill, which has certainly been looked for for some time. As a matter of fact, for the first time that I can remember, the chairman of the region actually called the four members within the region to encourage our involvement in this bill, and of course we were delighted to oblige.

The takeover of the village, formerly operated by the Doon Pioneer Foundation, is a natural step forward as we develop a variety of tourist-related sites within our community. Not only the Joseph Schneider House but also the new Seagram Museum and the National Museum for Ceramics, which is to be located in Waterloo, will make four major tourist attractions, and this will add, of course, to the interest in our community not only during Oktoberfest but also at many other times of the year. So I certainly welcome this bill and of course will support it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a vested interest in the political matters in Waterloo county, but I feel I should bring to your attention that since the Doon Pioneer Village moves under another jurisdiction and auspices, we should remember that one of the citizens most influential in its establishment originally was the late William Barrie of Waterloo county.

Mr. Barrie was one of the best and most progressive farmers in Canada and was recognized as such throughout our country and even internationally. He was a longtime member of the various ploughmen's associations, and even well into his nineties he attended the international matches, if not as a participant at least as a judge. He was one of the finest gentlemen that anyone would ever have cared to meet, and even in his nineties he maintained his interest in all things associated with the history of the agricultural community of Ontario. I thought it was appropriate to mention his name on second reading of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, it might come as some surprise that I would want to speak on this bill, but I want to speak as a representative of one of the descendants of the homestead of Peter McArthur. My son happens to be a great-grandson of one Peter McArthur. My mother-in-law and father-in-law dealt with the Doon foundation and agreed to have the homestead of Peter McArthur, who was a very famous writer in the early part of this century, moved to the Doon Pioneer Village. I just wanted to say that the family have been informed of this particular transfer and are very much in agreement that they want to see the continuation of this most important historic site.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be moving it to committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Dealing with Bill 193, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, we have an amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that section 177 of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out "January" where it appears in subsections 3, 4 and 6, and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance "March."

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 193, as amended, reported.

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

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved third reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act.

Motion agreed to.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about particular amendments in Bill 178, that will benefit particularly a person whose solicitor had written to me with respect to difficulties in which his client found herself.

As a result of the amendments to this act, orders made under the Divorce Act are going to be enforceable by attachment of a pension. In the instance referred to me, since the husband of the lady involved was in receipt of a pension as a result of employment with the Ontario civil service and there was an order for support under the Divorce Act, that pension has for some time been immune from attachment.

I certainly hope the House will support the bill, not only to make fairer claims and protect proper and appropriate claims in matters such as the one I referred to, but also to deal with the other administrative amendments before the House. Certainly, I would support the bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this bill will get unanimous support because it implements what the government apparently intended to do before about guaranteeing a pension plan. If this bill dealt with the limit of the guarantee with regard to aid, we might have some objection to it because it is certainly inadequate.

It guarantees pension plans only to anybody who is 45 years of age and over who has at least 10 years of service. That could mean there would be many employees who might have 20 or 25 years of service but had not reached 45. However, that does not come under this bill. It does tighten it up to make sure at least that group is going to get that.

As far as the issue raised with regard to the application to support for divorce decisions and for decisions made in other jurisdictions, we all have to support that. It has been very regrettable that the people who have been entitled to those payments up to this time have not been able to get them and we are certainly anxious to make that change.

I have one reservation about the bill. I hope the parliamentary assistant will deal with this, but I guess that will be done when we come back from dinner. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would take a look at section 9 in the present bill, particularly subsection 3, clause g(a).

First, we in this party dislike that, because it empowers the minister to designate employees of pension plans or any class thereof to be excepted from the application of this bill. We think they should apply to anybody. It may very well be the minister would not use that to consciously hurt any employees who would otherwise be entitled to these guarantees, but it provides that option to the minister.

However, the present act, under section 38, which this amends under clause g, does, as I see it, exactly the same things. If one looks at clause g under the act, it says, "designating employees or pension plans, or any class thereof, that are excepted from the application of this act and the regulations." Is another clause going to be included immediately under that one which does the same thing, or is it the intention to delete that clause and put this one it its place?

I recognize that it is six o'clock, but I hope when we come back at eight o'clock the parliamentary assistant can clear up what seems to be an oversight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just before Mr. Speaker recognizes the clock, I thought I should indicate that tonight we would conclude consideration of Bill 178 for second reading and committee of the whole House, if any is required. Then, rather than as printed on the Order Paper, we will move to second reading of Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act, which Mr. McMurtry will be taking. That would be followed by the 24th order, the Judicature Amendment Act, and then we will move to the 21st order, Bill 177, then to Bill 7 and then Bills 203 and 197, if there is time.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

25 janvier 1983