role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 5, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L063 - Tue 5 Jun 1979 / Mar 5 jun 1979

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLYTECHNIC EDUCATION

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

VISITORS

FREE TRADE POLICY

NEW PLANNING BILL

VANDALISM

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

TUITION FEES

FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESS

OHC TENANTS’ INCOMES

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

FARM WOOD LOTS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

GAS SERVICE EXTENSION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

RAILWAYS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1919

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLYTECHNIC EDUCATION

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister explain why it would appear that her ministry is not yet aware of and prepared for the trend among Ontario young people to seek places in community colleges and polytechnic programs rather than in universities?

Can she explain the statement by Mr. Williams, the chairman of the council of regents of community colleges, who was somewhat surprised by the fact that 90,000 people are applying for only 40,000 first-year places in the community colleges and that that is a trend identified only within the last month?

Does the minister not realize that the young people of this province for some time now have been indicating they want both a general education and a specific industry-oriented education such as can be provided by community colleges and polytechnic programs? Why is her ministry still surprised by this trend and unable to act in accordance with it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise at all in terms of the requirements of the young people of Ontario for various kinds of post-secondary education. In fact it was as a result of this presaging capacity that the community college system was established in this province more than 15 years ago.

The popularity of the community colleges was relatively stable for a period of time but within the last three years has been growing steadily. We have been very much aware of the growth and have assisted the community colleges in finding alternative places to provide greater space for the community college students and for the applicants.

We are aware that this year there were about 140,000 applications for places within the community colleges. As a result of using the computer system which has been developed and which weeds out multiple applications the number of qualified applicants for community college places will probably be somewhere in the region of 55,000 rather than 90,000, as the original figure was stated to be.

We are assisting the community colleges right now in finding extra space. This is one of the reasons that community colleges have been interested in such buildings as the Toronto Ontario Teacher Education College. We are trying to help them to provide extra places for the students who have made the decision that they wish that kind of technological education, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. S. Smith: Given that 10,000 or 15,000 young people are going to be refused entrance, and given the fact that universities have declining enrolments and financial difficulties, why does the ministry not have in place now in Ontario a myriad of programs of the polytechnic type, bringing together the universities with the community colleges in their respective areas and using the present facilities, plus industrial equipment and so on that may be made available by industry, to provide across Ontario the polytechnic-like programs that Ryerson gives here in Toronto and to meet the needs of our young people and our industries?

Why does the ministry not fund Ryerson properly, and why does it not fund polytechnic programs generally, combining both the universities and the community colleges into proper polytechnic programs, instead of letting the universities limp along the way they do at present and leaving students shut out of the community college system?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There was a specific allocation to community colleges this year, recognizing the increased enrolment they are experiencing. That will blossom even further next year and in the year following that.

I would like to let the Leader of the Opposition know that there is an increase in applications to universities in this province this year as well. Whether that bears fruit in September is something we shall wait to see, but the young people of this province are becoming very much aware of the need for education and/or training in their post-secondary lives and they are obviously making applications to ensure that happens.

We do have a system of polytechnic education throughout Ontario; it is not confined to Ryerson, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. In fact, it is carried out in many of the community colleges within this province right across the province, and it is excellent polytechnic education.

The funding of Ryerson at the present time is on the basis of a formula which Ryerson requested and which was agreed to in 1974. In January 1979, Ryerson’s president, Dr. Pitman, asked me to consider a modification of its funding formula. That was the question he raised. I suggested to him I would be very happy to look at that and to consider it seriously if he would provide me with the presentation which Ryerson would develop to support its application. I am informed by Dr. Pitman now that I shall have that information by the end of June or early July, at which time it will be examined both by the Ontario Council on University Affairs and by the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister mentions the specific allocation of money to community colleges to compensate them for their increases in enrolment relative to the universities, can she explain why that money was promised in 1977 but not paid then, promised in 1978 but not paid then, and why only a portion of the total amount promised for this year is being paid in 1979-80?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to find out whether indeed there was a promise in 1977 and 1978 that was not carried out.

Mr. Cassidy: There certainly was.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not aware of that, but I shall explore that and report to the House. In fact, a significant portion of it was delivered for the 1979-80 year.

Mr. Sweeney: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: When a community college like Conestoga, in Kitchener, has clearly identified skills needs and has set up the program within its own institution, is there any intent on the government’s part to provide any extra funding so that the large number of students -- in this case, the metalworkers -- who want to move into that program will be able to do so?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from discussions with the president of Conestoga that they are moving vigorously forward with the program which they have suggested is required in their area, with the strong support of the council of regents and with the strong support of the ministry.

At this point in time there has not been a specific request for additional funding. However, knowing the problems which some of the community colleges are facing right at the moment, we are looking very carefully at their needs to determine if there is some way in which we can be of greater assistance.

Mr. Cooke: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree that the present method of funding, whereby a community college or university gets rewarded for its students only after it already has the students, inhibits or slows down the university’s or the community college’s ability to react to the needs of the community? Why does she not change that method of funding so that community colleges can react immediately to community needs rather than having to wait three or four years, as the system now provides?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely correct. They do not wait for three or four years. Indeed, there is a response on the basis of the annual report of the college in terms of enrolment. But it is not only affected by the enrolment within the institution.

The slip-year funding program which has been established shields the institutions from the tremendous variations in funding which might occur as a result of changes in enrolment. We are trying very diligently to ensure that the appropriate level of funding is provided on the one hand to universities and on the other hand to community colleges.

[2:15]

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In addition to that, I think we have to consider very seriously the kind of support which is necessary for a skills training program which will have a base neither in community colleges nor universities. This is the area of post-secondary education on which I believe we really should be concentrating.

Mr. S. Smith: It is joint programs you should be funding.

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. S. Smith: I have another question of the Minister of Education. Can the minister tell us when she will be keeping the promise she made in December 1978, that during the spring session she would be bringing forward amendments to the Education Act to require the local school boards to provide services for those children with learning disabilities? In particular, can she tell us whether she will be able to provide for the spotting of these children with learning disabilities as well as for the particular needs in the treatment and the educational remediation of these particular problems? Why have we not seen the amendments by now and when can we expect them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The early identification program will be instituted by the boards beginning in September 1979, as the result of a memorandum which was delivered to the boards in January. We have total unanimity on the part of school trustees and teachers alike that the early identification program is the important first stage in development of the kind of program which I had proposed.

I can’t give the Leader of the Opposition an exact date at this time. I do not know whether it is going to be possible to introduce this before the end of this session or not. Having sent out the proposed legislation and having asked for the responses, I believe most of the responses are now in. The specific concerns which were expressed by school boards, by the teachers’ federation, by parents, by the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities and by the Association for the Mentally Retarded are being collated in order to ensure that whatever we produce for this House will take all of those into consideration.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, the minister must surely be aware that once a child is spotted as possibly having a learning disability it is then necessary to do certain medical and psychological tests to properly analyse the nature of the disability. Is she aware that in the private sector such tests are going at approximately $350 per child?

Under the circumstances, will the minister assure that when through the spotting of these children a recognition of these problems occurs in the school system, every school system will have available to it a backup facility of psychologists, doctors and others who are expert in this field, to make sure that whatever further analysis of the child’s problem will be required will either be available under OHIP, which it presently is not, or at some other local facility funded by her ministry or some other ministry? What good is recognition without the proper backup facilities?

Mr. Laughren: The Liberals would cut educational spending too.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The sensitivity to problems which young children will probably have within the learning period are fairly well obvious to teachers who have been specifically and conscientiously trained in examining the potential of young children on entering the school system.

I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is absolutely essential in those cases where further investigation is necessary that there be available the kind of consultative assessment program which we have established and which we are expanding at the Hospital for Sick Children, which will be duplicated in Ottawa, and hopefully, will then be duplicated when we know how well it functions and where it should be throughout the rest of the province. That is not going to happen overnight, but it is one of the specific concerns we have in order to ensure that --

Mr. Warner: No, not overnight; the kids will be on the old age pension by the time the government finishes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- the appropriate assessment is made of those who require further consultation and that the appropriate kind of consultative services are available to the school system, not necessarily within the school system but available to the school system in order to provide the appropriate program.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister, since she is considering the provision of backup facilities, is she also considering the provision of backup money for the boards of education which are taking on this new responsibility? How much is she going to be telling them they will have and when will they have the programs they are being asked to bring into effect?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’m sure we’ll be telling the boards exactly what the circumstances and conditions are as soon as the information is introduced in the Legislature.

Mr. Warner: No money.

Mr. di Santo: When will that be?

Mr. Warner: That’s the answer: no money.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Will the minister guarantee the school boards which seek to implement facilities and programs for children with learning disabilities the continuation of funding for those programs once they have been initiated?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The kind of guarantee which the honourable member is requesting is one which may, in fact, be possible, but on the other hand may not be possible in terms of the circumstances which prevail within the economy of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s quite a guarantee isn’t it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When the economy of the province of Ontario is buoyant, I’m sure we can assure the school boards that indeed this will happen. This is why we are working so diligently to attempt to improve the economic base of this province, because without a good, sound and buoyant economic base --

Mr. Bradley: Is that “yes” or “no?”

Mr. Breithaupt: On the backs of children.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- there is no revenue available for any kind of social service program.

Mr. Warner: You’re one of Frank Miller’s henchmen.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister telling us she is not going to bring in special legislation that will make it mandatory? Is she telling us she is going to wait for the general legislative grants to be announced; and is she telling us she is not going to announce the grants until she brings in the legislation, or that she is not going to bring in the legislation until she announces the grants? Could she clarify that?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s called being concerned.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The answers to those three questions are no, no and no.

Mr. Foulds: So you are not going to do anything, are you?

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We have had five questions on this subject.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre, I’d like to draw to the attention of all honourable members some distinguished visitors in our gallery in the persons of Dr. Helen Graves, assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, Acting Chancellor Klein of the University of Michigan, and Vice-Chancellor Arden, all from Dearborn. They are here in connection with the parliamentary internship program. A good many of the interns are sitting under the Speaker’s gallery. All of them are associated with one member or another of this assembly. We are awfully pleased to have them as visitors in our gallery today.

FREE TRADE POLICY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question is appropriate in view of our guests from Michigan. I have a question for the Treasurer about the pressing economic issue of free trade as it affects Ontario. In view of the fact we seem to be drifting into free trade with the United States, I would like to ask the Treasurer what the government’s position is on free trade with the United States.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the honourable member knows who negotiates on behalf of Canada in those matters.

Mr. Breithaupt: Robert de Cotret.

Mr. Bradley: Your friends in Ottawa.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Jake Warren, representing the federal government, has been very busy in Geneva.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t represent anybody, he lost the election.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He’s a civil servant. He can’t lose. Within the next short while, within the next week I believe, we will see the full details of the GATT agreement. I understand during those negotiations the United States and Canada carried on a number of discussions vis-â-vis their very large exchange of products and we will probably have one of the lowest overall barriers to mutual trade in the free world, with many Canadian products and many US products entering totally free.

We have been consulted by the federal government in this process. Our biggest concern has been to protect those Canadian -- and particularly the Ontario -- manufacturers who could be affected by a move to lower tariffs or no tariffs.

An hon. member: What about the farmers?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact the farm machinery sector has had free trade for 30 years and we have a very heavy deficit in our trade with the United States in that sector; and in view of the fact the machinery comes into this country tariff-free for the most part and we have a deficit of more than $3 billion in that sector; and in view of the fact we have a multi-billion dollar deficit and one that is worsening in auto parts, where there was also free trade with the United States; can the minister say what are the advantages for Ontario of this drift towards free trade as far as our trade policy is concerned; and what is this government prepared to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, our route is to advise the federal government on those matters, and we do that. I would point out to the member that in the automobile industry to which he just referred, while we do have a deficit of about $1.2 billion in total in the overall exchange of parts and assembled vehicles -- I think that is roughly it; a $3 billion deficit in parts, a $2 billion surplus in assembled vehicles, if my recollection is correct -- if one goes back to pre-1965 days where there were very real protective barriers, I think the member will find we have improved our position rather than making it worse. That is on a percentage basis, not on a dollar basis.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to remind the Treasurer the deteriorating merchandising trade deficit in the first four months of 1979 is an indication that our trade is already too much oriented to the United States. As well, as our leader indicated, where there have been free trade pacts the results have been disastrous in terms of balance of trade.

Would the Treasurer share with us, which he has failed to do despite two requests from my leader, his views on free trade with the United States? Further, does he not agree when the GATT negotiations are complete and we have 80 per cent of our trade duty free with the United States and 90 per cent with five per cent duty or less, that this really does constitute free trade with the United States? Would the Treasurer tell us what his views are on free trade with the United States?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about free trade with anyone in a nation like ours, but I have to tell members that if one attended the GATT negotiations one would realize the negotiations going on there were going to be applied to the nations in any event. Our big problem will be to adjust to the new rules.

Currently, the latest figure I saw showed the Canadian manufacturing industry running at 89 per cent of capacity at this point. That is virtually full capacity when one allows for plants on strike or for certain weak sectors. One of the great things that is happening is that we are seeing in Canada this year a tremendous decision-making process towards new plant investment. A good deal of that, aided by the kinds of grants we are currently giving, is aimed at export markets and import replacement. We can be satisfied the current effect of the low Canadian dollar and our increased productivity is finally being felt in the manufacturing and export sector.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister explain just how he thinks this policy is being so successful, when in fact in the first quarter of this year our trade surplus shrank from $1.25 billion in 1978 to $426 million this year? If the minister’s policy continues, does that mean we are going to go into ever-increasing deficits in our merchandise trades with the United States or other countries; and what policies does the government have in mind in order to ensure that we start to get adequate trade surpluses, rather than shrinking surpluses as is happening right now?

Mr. S. Smith: They are going to drive down the dollar.

Mr. Bradley: All part of the same gang.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Driving down the dollar will not necessarily help. I think the dollar currently is at a level which is perhaps a shade below its true value, but, I would say the advantages of that relatively low level are just being felt. I have to tell the member I have reason to believe, first of all, it takes some time to get a new plant in place. He would agree with that. I also have reason to believe the kinds of missions the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has had abroad lately have really increased our export performance.

By coincidence just last week, while attending an unrelated function, I talked to representatives of one small company located near Toronto. They told me they more or less reluctantly went along on the MIT European mission. On the very first visit they increased their export sales by roughly six per cent of their total Canadian sales, in one trip. That was a very important addition; they now recognize the size of the European market and they are adjusting themselves to compete for it.

[2:30]

NEW PLANNING BILL

Mr. Cassidy: I missed the Minister of Education who seems to have left. I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing. Is he aware of the concern of municipalities across Ontario with the government’s proposal to remove from municipalities their power to have architectural control in the proposed Bill 96? Can the minister explain why the government is taking that step and will he undertake to restore that power and give back to the municipalities the autonomy they are now losing?

Mr. S. Smith: It is on the Order Paper.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This particular bill is listed on the Order Paper for discussion this afternoon. It will be the first item after the question period and that’s when the matter would be most appropriately introduced.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister say what consultation took place with municipal representatives concerning Bill 96? Very considerable concern, we understand, has been expressed from as many as 35 municipalities across the province? Specifically, can he explain why it is that when we talked to them, the municipalities of London, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, Sudbury, Stoney Creek and Windsor were all opposed to the deletion of this particular power from the new bill and were very concerned at the fact their views had not been considered, nor had they been adequately consulted?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will be delighted to respond to that under the item following the question period.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I direct your attention to rule 19(d)(5), which states that “a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he anticipates any matter already on the Order Paper or Notice Paper for consideration.” The item being discussed by the leader of the third party is not only on the Order Paper, but it also happens to be on the Notice Paper for discussion today.

Mr. Foulds: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that rule comes under rules of debate. Question period, as you have repeatedly informed us, is not debate but question period.

Mr. Speaker: We have had numerous occasions here in the past where questions have been permitted on things that would be considered of urgent public importance during question period but would not be allowed during the normal course of debate. The honourable minister has indicated he’s not prepared to answer any further questions in this regard since there is an ample opportunity to do it after routine proceedings this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have given you the initial question and I have given you an opportunity to ask a supplementary. On both occasions, the honourable minister has indicated that he doesn’t have anything further to add. You will have an opportunity during the second reading of the bill this afternoon. Anything further than that would be counterproductive.

Mr. Cassidy: I can’t question him then. He should withdraw the bill and do some proper consultation.

VANDALISM

Mr. Stong: In the absence of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch), I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), who I assume is the House leader this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General is just outside. In preference to asking me a question, I can get him for the honourable member if he wants. It’s his choice.

Mr. Roy: Tell him to come in.

Mr. Stong: My question is of the Attorney General specifically. Perhaps someone else can answer it.

Mr. Conway: Get him away from that disco journalism --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the honourable member should ask a question of a minister who is present in the House.

Mr. Nixon: The assistant acting House leader.

Mr. Stong: In light of the rising incidence of vandalism, particularly in our urban centres, what specific steps is this government taking to curb this blight on our society?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m sorry I missed the first part of the question, which on this one occasion was an important part.

Mr. Stong: In light of the rising incidence of vandalism in our urban centres, what is the government specifically doing to curb that offence?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know my friend and colleague the Attorney General would be doing a great deal about that problem.

Mr. Bradley: Don’t you attend cabinet meetings?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suspect he will be here within moments. I’ll go out and get him if he’s not, but I know he’s just outside the door. Perhaps the honourable member would hold that question for a moment or two.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to answer a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s hear it and see. I don’t know.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if, when the minister is speaking to the Attorney General, he would investigate with him the feasibility of making it more economical for school boards to hire security guards, even if it means employing the incentive of increasing dramatically the deductible portion of insurance policies? Would he also investigate and encourage provincial judges in our juvenile system to apply more frequently the remedies available under

section 33 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which would require parents or guardians of those judged to be juvenile delinquents to pay the cost of damages incurred by those delinquents?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I would be pleased to canvass those alternatives with the Attorney General, because I know he is very concerned about the very question the member has raised. I will take it up with him, perhaps within a half hour.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. We in this party have been simply awestruck with the use of the words “carefully considered foreign investment,” in replies to our questions about this government’s open-door policy on foreign ownership. I will wait for the minister to take his seat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: He is going to get his Santa Claus suit.

Mr. Laughren: This is very strange behaviour on the part of the minister, I must say.

Mr. Roy: He’s a very strange minister.

Mr. Laughren: I will remain in my seat while he answers. I will put it to the minister again. We have been simply awestruck by the use of the words “carefully considered foreign investment” in reply to our questions to the minister about the government’s open-door policy on foreign ownership in Ontario and in the rest of Canada. How can the minister explain that foreign investment is carefully considered by his government when 92 per cent of all applications considered by the Foreign Investment Review Agency were approved in the first four months of 1979 and when the government’s assessment memo, which we obtained from his ministry, is nothing more than a check list of criteria?

When the minister was in Japan on his recent trip, did he take a look at the rather extensive set of guidelines produced in 1977 for multinationals operating in that country, which, among other things, prevents suppression of small enterprises, prevents stifling the efforts of Japanese industries to develop their own technology, prevents closure of plants or mass dismissals and requires a contribution to the improvement of Japan’s balance of payments? When will this government bring in a similar set of tough guidelines which must be followed by any foreign firm which is allowed the privilege of operating in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out to the honourable member that there are very many firms operating in this province right now, very many multinationals, in ridings represented on all sides of this House, which, in fact, would not meet all of those criteria the member has set out. What we try to do in developing a policy is, quite frankly, to maintain the flexibility to extract those undertakings that we might be able to extract, in conjunction with FIRA, from some firms that are coming here.

I would much prefer to see employment created by a multinational which is given certain undertakings and is able thereby to create some long-term jobs for this country, rather than to have any sort of hard and fast rules which say multinationals are (a), not allowed in this country; or (b), only allowed under such severe and restrictive conditions that Babcock and Wilcox will not go into Cambridge.

That is our flexible approach and, quite frankly we don’t apologize for having that flexible approach. We believe that flexible approach makes it possible to get a high degree of investment into this country, which we badly need, and a large number of jobs, many more than would be created if we followed the proposals that the member outlined.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary to that outrageous answer: Has the minister taken a good look at that form, which is the criteria check list, and does he not think it’s really a dishonest representation of having any criteria at all, since it’s obvious that any applicant who wanted to apply to FIRA could meet all those criteria in the short run? It wouldn’t be hard to do that at all -- for example, the criteria to create more jobs or the criteria to increase the use of Ontario materials and components.

Is the minister not aware that in the long run, foreign ownership has precisely the opposite effect of the criteria they might very well meet in the short run? Does he know that multinationals, over the number of years they have been here have, in fact, been costing us jobs and have been costing us an enormous amount in terms of dividend payments and business payments that go elsewhere and create an enormous trade deficit for the province of Ontario, indeed for all of Canada?

Will the minister explain, finally, why there is no time factor at all in the criteria which must be met by these firms that apply to the Foreign Investment Review Agency and which this government invariably approves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The honourable member suggests it creates a large trade deficit and, in fact, a net loss of jobs. I have to tell him any suggestion that allowing multinationals to invest in this country loses jobs for this country is, with respect, foolishness. The member should look behind himself, beside himself and look over here, and he will see many of us representing ridings in which there are not only a lot of jobs created by multinationals, but a lot of jobs which have been there for a heck of a long time.

Mr. Wildman: What about secondary manufacturing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an alternative to allowing multinationals into this country, with much of the technology which they do bring in this country.

Mr. S. Smith: You could get it under licence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition suggests we could get it under licence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not a part of the supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Right. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the honourable member who asked that question that the clear policy of this government is to say there are a heck of a lot of jobs created by multinationals. Very many of those jobs, if you will analyse them, are long-term jobs. They have been in communities for many years.

Westinghouse, in Hamilton, is an obvious one that comes to mind. While they are currently reducing the number of jobs, or talking about reducing the number of jobs, the fact is enormous wealth has flowed to that community because Westinghouse has been there -- for what, 40 or 50 years?

Mr. S. Smith: That is a great example.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Untold wealth and employment were created in that community, which frankly I would rather have in that community than not have in that community.

Mr. Laughren: Look at the jobs they cost us on balance.

Mr. Cassidy: We could do better ourselves.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Any bald policy that would simply say, “You are not welcome here,” or, “You can’t come in here” would cost thousands and thousands of jobs. We are not prepared to see those jobs go away, simply so the members opposite might be able to wrap themselves in a flag and boast of their nationalism. That is foolishness. The thousands of people who are working for multinationals, happily and with secure homes and families because of their incomes, would frown upon their policy, and they know it very well.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister unaware of the fact the foreign ownership of our economy leads to a chronic drain in the balance of payments, leads to a non-research and development-oriented economy, a non-export-oriented economy? Is he not aware at this stage of the game that the only thing foreign people can bring to this country in terms of opening branches here is capital and technology? Doesn’t he know we have the capital in our own country, if he would only give our people a chance to get out of this colonial mentality that makes us dependent upon the rest of the world?

Doesn’t he know we have the technology; and where we don’t have it we could get it under licence and then become expert in that technology and compete with those very multinationals which right now own this economy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to recover from that outrage.

Mr. S. Smith: That is what it is, it is an outrage.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To us, you’re an outrage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition, and I know he knows this very well, that when he talks about all that capital suddenly being available, I suggest to him if we approached all the multinationals in this country and said, “Would you mind selling all your capital investments?” well --

Mr. S. Smith: That is not what we are suggesting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want an answer to the question, or not?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, but not a distorted one.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: Do him the courtesy of allowing him to respond then.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He doesn’t want an answer; he wants to be outraged.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point of the exercise, of course, is that the member’s seat mate, for example, is very concerned about retaining those jobs at Budd in Kitchener.

Mr. Eakins: Let’s be careful, now, what we say about working with multinationals.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t the member listen to the answer?

He isn’t saying to us, and can’t say to us, that all we have to do is to trot around and we will find some Canadians who can bring the technology to this country that Budd brought to this country. He isn’t able to do that. Nor is my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor), able to suggest that Canadians would have developed the truck axle assemblies that Hayes Dana is putting into Barrie with our assistance, for which we have no apologies.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go out to the people of this province and tell them it’s very simple, all we have to do is close the doors to all that investment. I would point out, and I’m sure members have read the Toronto Star today, that some senior people from New York state were in this province encouraging our businessmen to invest in their state because they want investment in their state. They offered incentives and encouragement, and pointed out how important it is for them to encourage this type of investment to keep their state strong and their people working.

Mr. S. Smith: They are not 70 per cent owned outside the country.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: His outrage aside, the Leader of the Opposition would stand up and feign that outrage, but for once with some justification, if we lost employment out of this province; if we wrapped ourselves in the flag, as he wants us to do, and suggested we would rather have a pure system of only Canadians, with lots of unemployment.

Mr. S. Smith: I have faith in this country.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He would stand up and say, “How dare you let this happen? Why don’t you let that technology come to this country?”

The Leader of the Opposition knows very well one of the reasons Westinghouse has been able to stay in his riding all these years is that they have had the benefit of a heck of a lot of technology. He and his friends at any university couldn’t have developed that technology without that great company working and developing it for his people to have employment.

Mr. Mackenzie: And where are they going now?

Mr. S. Smith: What confidence you have in Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

Mr. Peterson: A new question to the minister who announces the giveaways, Mr. Speaker:

In response to a question from my colleague from St. Catharines last week, the Minister of Industry and Tourism indicated he had told TRW ahead of the budget they would be getting some government allocation, even though the minister changed the fund from which that money was taken. Could the minister tell this House how many companies received an indication from him, prior to the budget, they would get some kind of grant, giveaway, or whatever he gives away; and how many of those will be taken out of the Employment Development Fund?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One other.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: When is the minister going to table in this House the documents for the companies to which he has given grants?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very shortly; as indicated last week, we are doing two things. We are looking, with the lawyers, at the extent of the documentation we might be able to make available. I am confident it will be the sum and substance of them. The undertakings we have; the enforceability clauses out of the contracts, they will be no problem. We are working with them on a standard form contract, which I know members might like to have if we can develop one that will work for all companies.

We are also talking to the companies with whom we have already entered into contracts, the four of which members are aware, in an attempt to work out with them just how much of that information we can make available, since that wasn’t known to them when they signed the contracts. It shouldn’t be too much longer.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate the other company? And what was the exact nature of this prebudget commitment he offered to these two companies? Which was the second company, and what was the exact nature of the commitment the minister entered into?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Negotiations with the second company should be completed in about a week or a week and half. Prior to that time, as in the case with all other applicants to the fund, I can’t disclose the name of the company.

Mr. S. Smith: You can leak the budget to them but you can’t leak their names to us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Suffice to say that the undertaking we gave them followed almost exactly the framework of the telex I read in the House the other day. It was the same format exactly.

TUITION FEES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The information regarding the opinion of the public in terms of the relationship which tuition fees should play to the total cost of education is, I think, available. If it is not I shall make sure that it is available to the members of the House.

I think the honourable member knows the answer to the second question without even asking it. The report which was initiated by my predecessor has been delivered, it has been tabled, it is public. It has been distributed to all groups with any concern at all about post-secondary education and the relationship of tuition fees to post-secondary education. Their responses are almost all in at the present time. They are being collated and they will be going to the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology for their comments.

Then they will be coming back to the ministry because it is on the basis of all of the information we shall have collected that we shall make the decision related to tuition fees.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The information we have at the present time would indicate that in those jurisdictions in which there is a very low or no tuition fee the numbers of students from the lower economic bracket is smaller than it is in the province of Ontario where the student assistance program has been redesigned specifically to assist students from that group within the economic structure of our province.

Information is being developed. I cannot tabulate for the honourable member specific research papers at this time, but I shall make sure that that background information is available to him, if and when we bring in a recommendation in this area.

FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Roy: I have a question to the Minister of Education.

Given that the green paper published for the Ottawa-Carleton school problems back in February 1979 was an attempt to let the local bodies arrive at a consensus, why did the minister reject the one recommendation on which there was unanimity, that is, for a regional, homogeneous, French-language school board, when in fact that would be the one unanimous point among, not only all the school boards, but the city council and all the leaders and newspapers, et cetera, in the Ottawa-Carleton area? Why did she reject that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We felt we had addressed reasonably well the specific concerns expressed in the Mayo report in the alternatives which were proposed in the green paper. To say there was total unanimity on the part of all groups within Ottawa I think would be probably not correct, since I am aware that there are many groups not in support of that recommendation. Certainly, from the information which has been delivered to me from citizens’ groups, ratepayers’ associations and others, there has been some concern expressed about this.

What we are attempting to do is find the most appropriate way to meet the concerns of the francophone parents and the francophone students within that area in order to ensure that there is the appropriate kind of supervision of their educational program by francophone individuals.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Apart from the opposition by some of the minister’s colleagues to this French-language school board, is she going to reject again the recommendations of the Ottawa and Carleton Boards of Education -- and she probably has their reports now; they were to be in by June 1 -- which are going to be suggesting to her the creation of a French-language school board in the Ottawa-Carleton area? Is she going to do that again?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for me to predict anything of that sort, since at this point I have only a verbal report of the contents of the Ottawa board’s recommendations, and I do not think the Carleton board’s recommendation has been drafted as yet.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to change her and the government’s opposition to the creation of a French-language school board in Ottawa, given the fact that in response to her green paper the school boards in the area have reiterated their original position, which is that they want the creation of the French-language board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if and when I receive the responses from the two school boards, I will be very happy to speak to the honourable member’s question.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I have a supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: You have had two already.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education regarding the building of Brother Edmund Rice school in my riding: In view of the fact that 300 students in this school are now in 14 portables and the Metropolitan Separate School Board of Toronto considers the building of this school the top priority, why has the minister now reversed her original position unilaterally and postponed the building of this school until 1982?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry; I think I gathered the gist of the question but I am not at all sure I heard the question in its entirety. I gather it is about Brother Edmund Rice school. If it is, I shall attempt to gather the information and respond to the honourable member when I have done so.

Mr. Dukszta: The minister made a decision only a couple of weeks ago that the building of the school will not be allowed to proceed until 1982 in spite of the original commitment of the ministry and in spite of the recommendation by the Metropolitan Separate School Board of Toronto. She should know about her own decisions and not tell me she is going to gather the information later on, while there is a need right now to do it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But I can’t hear what the member is saying.

Mr. Dukszta: And she should not keep complaining that she does not understand me. She does not understand much, anyway.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If there was a deferment in terms of the permission to proceed with a building program, it was based upon the recommendation of the Metropolitan Separate School Board and upon the requirement that our first obligation is to provide places for those pupils who do not have any places at the moment. That is our first priority this year, and that is the priority we are attempting to fulfil.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, there are 14 portables. I am trying to give the information to the minister on that point.

Mr. Speaker: I heard you quite distinctly. That was a part of your original question. I understand the minister has undertaken to get a more complete answer.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Treasurer: In his 1979 budget press release he explained the kind of businesses in which a small business development corporation may invest and he said they will have a maximum of 100 employees. I take it that this is his government’s definition of a small business. Would the Treasurer explain briefly the definition of small business?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we chose the definition on the basis of the number of employees for eligibility for entrance. The member is quite right: We said mining, tourism, manufacturing and processing are the eligible categories, and that Ontario, Canadian-owned businesses of less than 100 employees qualify.

Mr. Eakins: Since the definition of Prime Minister Charles Joseph Clark is the same definition as used in my private member’s bill for a small business act for Ontario, would I be correct in presuming that the minister will be using the same definition as his federal counterpart and his friends in Ottawa?

[3:00]

Hon. F. S. Miller: That was Charles who? I will have to do a little reading and check.

We defined two or three categories. For example, 75 per cent of the payroll must be in Ontario. We chose that number as a matter of convenience. If the member was present the night of the small business development corporations discussion, he will recall there were some arguments as to whether 100 was a wise choice or not.

Mr. Eakins: What is the minister’s guess?

Hon. F. S. Miller: For the purposes of this act we chose 100 employees as the most convenient measure of the size of the business. If that proves to be a poor definition, we are able to change it with the support of this House.

OHC TENANTS’ INCOMES

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Would the minister inform this House of the plans being formulated within Ontario Housing Corporation regarding additional boarding charges for children of families living in OHC housing? Specifically, is it the case that OHC is planning to abolish the present system whereby a child pays an additional $75 per month if they’re working, as assessed by the OHC, and in its place is considering charging them at the full rate of 25 per cent of that child’s income irrespective of the family situation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as I have reported to this House on previous occasions, the whole rent-geared-to-income factor and the way of determining income is under review, not only within my ministry but within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in relationship to the agreement we have with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, indeed, the municipality in the cost-sharing program related to rent-geared-to-income.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary: If the minister is replying it is still under discussion and he is still formulating plans, why are some of the housing authorities, Windsor Housing Authority being one of them, demanding that at lease renewal time all of the income of the children of those families be verified and notarized before the new lease will be signed, even if whatever new plan is contemplated is not yet in effect?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know the exact information of which the member speaks. I shall be delighted to look into the situation. Obviously, what the Windsor Housing Authority is doing is trying to determine the full incomes within their particular housing program. If some changes should be made -- and I'm not saying there will be any at this particular time -- then they’re in a position to move in that direction.

Mr. Speaker: A brief supplementary, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the minister if it is the policy of his ministry to require tenants in Ontario housing to indicate to the rental officer any jewellery or other valuables they possess?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been our direction, but we have asked for any income holdings the individuals within public housing might have. If that should be savings bonds or other interest drawn from savings accounts, that must be accounted for in the income qualifying factor.

Mr. Bolan: Why don’t you take the gold out of their teeth?

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago -- and I’m sorry I can’t recall the exact date -- the honourable the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the question of exposure in chiropractic X-rays. I’ve some numbers I’d like to provide to him. These, I’m told, are three of the more common views, as it were, that are taken.

They compare the average exposure in a chiropractor’s office, based on the 78 most recent inspections of chiropractic offices, with those in hospitals based on the 195 most recent hospital facility inspections.

There are two types of lumbar spine X-rays used. The first one is referred to as lumbar spine AP. The average for this in a chiropractor’s office is 0.78 rems; in a hospital it is 0.70.

The second type of lumbar spine view is known as the lateral view. In a chiropractor’s office, it is 2.2 rems; and in a hospital it is 2.8 rems. I don’t have the figures from a hospital for a full spine view because it’s basically a chiropractic examination, but it’s 0.5 rems in a chiropractic office.

FARM WOOD LOTS

Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the government House leader. Seeing that this is the time of year when farm wood lots are being decimated, why is he delaying further proceedings with the Trees Act? Is it because the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) has told him to postpone this as long as he can because the farmers in that member’s riding want to cut down the wood lots before this act is passed?

An hon. member: Diabolical.

Mr. Riddell: If that is the reason, when is the government going to accept the fact that that member’s weight should be considered only as part of his structure and not as the sole decision-maker in the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honourable member to retract that statement. It is not the truth. The member for Lambton is the one who has asked his colleagues in cabinet to proceed with the bill. The opposition is over there.

Mr. Riddell: Well, get it in. What are you holding it up for?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t withdraw it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The question was asked of the government House leader, the member for Brock. Do you have a response?

Mrs. Campbell: Answer the question. He’s entitled to that.

An hon. member: Don’t be so arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already anticipated my answer. I say very briefly, no, the member for Lambton has not given me any instructions with respect to that. The member for Lambton would understand that that’s the legislation of the Minister for Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), and the Minister of Natural Resources hasn’t indicated to me when he wants us to proceed with that particular bill.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a Tory in the wood pile.

Mrs. Campbell: Ha! Ha!

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would still ask the honourable member to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker: It wasn’t a statement of fact. It was a question of a minister.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You don’t take it then that he directed his statement to me?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Then it is misleading the House.

Some hon. members: Withdraw.

Mrs. Campbell: You were wrong.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Oakwood has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning the heritage languages program. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

Mr. Grande: Is the minister going to be here?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have never missed a late show yet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we hear the member for Downsview please?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to change

section 22 of the act to render the certificate of a medically qualified practitioner who conducts the examination of the employee conclusive of the matter certified; furthermore, to change

section 42(3) to require the board to consider the factors listed in the bill in determining the compensation payable in permanent disability cases; and, finally, to restrict the Workmen’s Compensation Board in determining cases falling under

section 42(5) of the act for the payment of the supplement.

GAS SERVICE EXTENSION ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 121,

An Act respecting the Procedure for the Extension of Gas Service in Metropolitan Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: The purpose of this bill is to provide a means of ensuring the accountability of the Consumers’ Gas Company to each neighbourhood and municipality in Metropolitan Toronto into which it proposes to extend gas service. The bill establishes a procedure for holding a neighbourhood plebiscite to determine the wishes of residents concerning the extension of gas service into their neighbourhood.

The bill prohibits the Consumers’ Gas Company from commencing any construction work for the purpose of extending service into a neighbourhood for a period of six months following the giving of notice as required by the act, unless the council of the municipality approves an earlier starting date. This is the first change in 130 years to the present legislation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This bill proposes to amend

section 35(

a) of the Planning Act.

Section 35(

a) enables municipalities to exercise what is commonly known as site-plan control. That is to require developers to provide additional site-related facilities such as access, landscaping, off-street parking et cetera, that could not normally be obtained through provisions contained in the general zoning bylaws passed under

section 35 of the act.

Section 35(

a) was introduced into the act by amendment in December 1973. Its introduction was in response to requests by six municipalities for similar private legislation and was based on recommendations made to the government by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Since its introduction, more than 75 municipalities have begun using the controls in one form or another. So many of these municipalities site-plan control constitutes an essential element in their development control procedures.

The need for this amendment at this time stems primarily from a recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 23, 1979, the Supreme Court declared the city of Toronto’s 35(

a) bylaw applying to the core area of the city to be ultra vires. The bylaw in question substantially repeated the wording of

section 35(

a) and the court ruled that in its view this was not a proper exercise of the power. It ruled that instead of merely listing the various facilities and matters to be regulated, provided for or prohibited, the bylaw should have specified exact standards relating to all of the matters described in

section 35(a)(2).

The Supreme Court decision has caused a number of problems which require immediate attention. First, many other municipalities in Ontario have enacted 35(

a) bylaws which are drafted in a manner similar to the city of Toronto’s bylaw. The legality of these bylaws is also questionable and nine major municipalities have formally requested me to amend the act to clarify the situation.

Second, the city of Toronto has proceeded to enact a general bylaw which attempts to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. It is clear from this exercise that further problems will result, since it is impossible to develop standards which can take into account variations from site to site. Such bylaws will have to almost always be amended before development can take place, adding significantly both to time and cost. Bylaws themselves are very detailed and complex and administration could be very unsatisfactory.

Third and most important, the Supreme Court decision removed the flexibility of the operation of the controls which were available previously. It was the initial intent of the Legislature to provide such flexibility when the provisions were first enacted.

In developing this amendment to the

section the primary objective has been to clarify the manner in which the powers can be enacted by municipalities and to provide some discretion in the application and administration of the controls by municipalities. The main features of the amendments are to, first of all, allow municipalities to apply site-plan controls directly rather than in a zoning bylaw, as was previously the case.

[3:15]

This should overcome the drafting difficulty under which the city of Toronto bylaw was declared ultra vires, allowing municipalities to exercise discretion in applying the controls; extend the facilities to be controlled by ensuring provision of access for emergency vehicles and enabling municipalities to require lower maximum building heights than those established in the zoning bylaw as long as there is no change in density; improve municipal administrative procedures by permitting a council to delegate administration of the controls to a committee of council.

The current provisions which allow municipalities to request submission of prospective drawings and plans showing buildings, elevations and cross sections of industrial and commercial buildings and residential buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units have been deleted because it has been found that only a handful of municipalities are using this power and in these instances it seems to add unduly to the time taken for approval.

These are the main features of Bill 96. They have been discussed in general terms with representatives from the development industry, including the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, which was the main proponent of the Supreme Court case on this matter. It has also been discussed with the city of Toronto and with the municipalities on committee. However, we understand as of recent days there are some changes of heart by the municipalities in wanting some portions of the bill to be amended.

I introduce Bill 96 for second reading and would await the comments of the opposition.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this bill arises from the fact that the city of Toronto bylaw number 419-74 was set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. This development control bylaw by the city of Toronto was similar to that passed by many other municipalities in this province and was according to

section 35a of the Planning Act. The Supreme Court felt, as I understand it, that the Legislature had not given the municipalities such ill-defined power as was included in the Toronto bylaw.

I believe that the decision by the Supreme Court was unfortunate because it has thrown into disarray the planning procedures of municipalities of Ontario. However, because the decision was based on law, the Supreme Court obviously had no other choice but to make the ruling which it did, irrespective of the inconvenience caused to municipalities.

The problem as I see it is that the Minister of Housing has used the opportunity, through Bill 96, to delete paragraph 12 of 35a(2) of the original Planning Act. This is particularly regrettable because municipalities were not informed that this was going to be the case.

Let me just read paragraph 12 of

section 35a(2) of the Planning Act. This is one of a number of clauses which interpret what municipalities can and cannot do in development control in the province. Paragraph 12 reads as follows: “Perspective drawings and plans showing building elevations and cross sections of industrial and commercial buildings and residential buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units.”

Municipalities have used this particular clause in the act, as well as a number of the others, in order to gain some control on building standards in the province. On average I think municipalities have done a tremendous job in this regard. I think they have been pleased with the province in having included this within the last few years so they could exercise their authority on municipal projects. What the province is now doing -- and it’s most irregular -- is to delete this from the act without consulting municipalities specifically on that particular deletion.

The minister may say they have consulted municipalities in a general sense, but this morning I spoke to a planner of a fairly large municipality and he said he was not aware that this particular clause was being deleted and he was most upset that the minister was going this route in order to, in a sense, try to mislead municipalities or, if not misleading them, certainly trying to put something over on them.

Let me read from the Globe and Mail of this morning what Mr. Sewell, the mayor of the city of Toronto, has said.

According to this reporter, Mr. Sewell was very unhappy with the bill. He says that in effect the minister has tried to sneak in this deletion. He says, “They are trying to sneak in the new law and kick out one of the significant powers we’ve had in the past.” He is obviously referring to paragraph 12 of

section 35a(2) of the Planning Act. “We’re dealing with really large projects; we should have the ability to ask for plans to see what they look like.”

This is asking developers to show what kind of plans they have and to be able to have some impact on the planning. As municipal representatives, people who are closest to the wishes of the public, they should have this opportunity. The minister has deleted this from the bill. What’s even worse he hasn’t told the municipalities he was going to do it, only that he has done it.

The

article goes on: “The mayor noted that Toronto recently passed special site-development bylaws for the $400 million College Park project (formerly T. Eaton Company Limited’s College Street store) and Eaton Centre’s $150 million Phase Two. In both cases, the city exercised its right to review design features.

“If the bylaws must be changed to comply with what the province has proposed, Mr. Sewell said he doesn’t think city council will pass the amendment. ‘I think those projects are going to get halted, stopped,’ he warned.”

I don’t disagree with the minister trying to expedite planning procedures. I do disagree with him when he’s trying to do it in the way he has proposed. I also disagree when municipal politicians are saying the actual effect will be that projects will be held up.

About the neighbourhood aspect, I have had representations made to me regarding development-control agreements. There are two parties involved in drawing up these agreements -- the municipality and the developer. There are those people in this province, particularly neighbourhood associations, who believe they also should be consulted in drawing up these development- control agreements. They feel that often there are important decisions made which relate to them, which are very close at hand, which may be in their backyard in the matter of garbage bins or whatever.

They would like very much to have an opportunity to be canvassed on these matters at the juncture where these development-control agreements are drawn up.

I do hope the minister will give some consideration to this matter because citizens are having an increasing amount of influence on these decisions and obviously should have the opportunity to be directly consulted in this matter.

Later on, when this goes to committee, my party will put forth an amendment, which we will circulate very shortly, to have paragraph 12 of

section 35a(2) reinstated in Bill 96. We think it’s most unfortunate that it was excluded. The municipalities with which I have been in contact would dearly like to see it reinstated. Until we have a good consensus on the matter from planners across the province that they do not need it, I will be of the opinion this bill should be amended to reflect their wishes.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, is not merely legal and administrative tinkering to replace a

section of the Planning Act which has been successfully upset by the Supreme Court decision recently in terms of Toronto bylaw 419-74. It appeared at first that the minister was simply rushing in to provide new legislation to cover at least 45 municipalities whose bylaws under

section 35a have suddenly been put under a legal cloud because of the decision by the Supreme Court.

That is what it appeared to be at first. But the bill is a significant change in policy by the minister, since it removes a crucial bargaining tool -- the control of architectural design -- from the hands of the municipalities, thereby significantly changing the rules of the game in negotiating between major developers and municipalities over site-plan control agreements. It is that point which is most important, as already mentioned by the member for Waterloo North.

The minister has led municipal officials to believe that the bill is merely housekeeping legislation which will restore the legislative basis for

section 35a bylaws and make the process more streamlined and less cumbersome. We in the New Democratic Party feel that the legal implications of the bill are the reverse, since the bill makes no provision to protect existing agreements and puts in jeopardy those under negotiation already.

It is interesting that, by this innocuous statement, the minister has moved away from some of his own often stated rhetorical positions; he said that the province must move away from the approval role to one of advising and assisting municipalities, and yet in this very bill the minister actually moves towards seriously limiting municipal autonomy and the rights of the municipalities to deal with development.

In the last couple of days, our research department and myself and my assistant, Penny Bethke, have phoned a number of municipalities. First of all, 10 days ago we sent a letter. Since the bill was suddenly rushed towards discussion here in the House, we decided to phone everyone in the last two days -- as many people as we could, I should say; planning departments and some of the aldermen in various municipalities -- to discover (1) whether they have been consulted and (2) their opinion of this crucial section, paragraph 12 of 35a(2).

The paragraph, as was clearly indicated by both of our previous speakers, is one which states that -- and I quote: “perspective drawings and plans showing building elevations and cross sections of industrial and commercial buildings and residential buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units” must be produced by the developers so that the municipality can make a decision in terms of whether it fits their plans, the development, the needs of the community and a number of other considerations like that

When we have discussed this with the various elected officials in the cities of Windsor, Sudbury, Hamilton, Ottawa, London, Thunder Bay and Toronto, there has been a general reaction of, first, disbelief that the minister would consciously move towards reducing the power of municipalities and, second, strong objection to having that particular paragraph removed from the act. This was universal in all the places I have mentioned.

It is also interesting that the minister was not prepared to deal with that in the question period. He promised us in the question period he would answer the question from my leader, which I hope he will be able to deal with now, as to why it is that he had not consulted municipalities, even only for political reasons, to check whether there would be a significant objection from them to removal of paragraph 12.

I find it very difficult to understand why a minister in charge of a large ministry, who with much fanfare recently introduced discussion papers on the Planning Act, would then rush to sneak in -- and I use that word very consciously -- to sneak in a new amendment to legislation which, in effect, will limit the right of the municipalities.

Mr. Wildman: We can see it when you are sneaking stuff in. We don’t come in afterwards and ask about something that was sneaked in when it was passed.

Mr. Dukszta: That is a better way of doing it, and that is why our leader was asking the question.

The minister must be aware that, in places like Toronto, removing that particular paragraph 12 will put into jeopardy, as I have said already, various negotiations going on between the developers and the municipalities and, in fact, causes some problems regarding the Eaton Centre development and the development of the College and Yonge Eaton’s building. Of course, if the minister would bother to contact people in the city of Toronto, he would discover that soon enough.

[3:30]

There are a number of points in the bill which need to be changed. One, the definition of the term “development” is much too vague. Two, the bill does not provide the means of exempting classes of projects from development control or means by which a council can delegate authority. Three, legal protection of existing agreements must be taken into consideration. Part of them depend on

section 35a(2)(12). Finally there is the question of architectural control.

Until I heard the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), I would have moved an amendment to restore paragraph 12 to the act, but I will now join him in supporting the amendment to restore it. I do want reassurance from the minister that he is willing to accept the joint amendment from the two opposition parties because unless I hear that he is willing to accept this amendment, I have no option but to vote against the bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before hearing any further comments on the bill, I would like to ask if there is a member in the House who sent an anonymous question to the table for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). If so, would the member give the table his name?

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Planning Act. My main concern is the same as that expressed by other members, in particularly relating to

section 35a(3) (12) -- “Perspective drawings and plans showing building elevations and cross sections of industrial, commercial and residential buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units.”

That will have effect, if the bill is passed, not only on the city of Toronto, but on other areas. I am not sure if the minister is aware of the present proposals put forward by the city of Port Colborne in accepting a development control zoning plan relating to the Sherkston Beaches operations. Some 500 acres with an open space concept are at present under the control of the municipality and the regional plan. It consists of almost a mile and a half of lakefront property with beautiful sand beaches. Under the proposals put forward for this area, it is to be developed into commercial, residential and high-density buildings.

The area is about eight miles from the downtown core of Port Colborne and there are no hard services available, such as sewers and water. In addition, the proposal will branch out further into the rural area of that community and no doubt cause serious problems there, in direct contrast to the regional plan and perhaps even the plan of the city of Port Colborne.

I suggest to the minister before the acceptance of his proposal under the new white paper on the Planning Act, a certain

section should be included in the amendments put forward by the ministry related to development controls and proposals being put forward by a number of municipalities. I am interested in the question of the provincial role in this matter.

In the white paper it says, “Most private development proposals will be subject only to the Planning Act. The Environmental Assessment Act will be applied only to major private undertakings designated by the cabinet.” If we are talking about Toronto, that means a high-rise building can go up and if there are any objections, the matter will still rest with the cabinet. There will be no appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; that is, the public has no right to appeal, if I interpret the paper correctly.

To continue quoting from the white paper, where such a designation of a major private undertaking is made, “any related approvals required under the Planning Act will become the responsibility of the approving authority under the Environmental Assessment Act.”

I am glad to see in this proposal the Environmental Assessment Act will apply to planning; I don’t think it has in the past. I am talking about an open concept theme park. I think of the matter of the one to be located in Maple. I can try and relate it to the matter of the proposal now being presented by the city of Port Colborne to the ministry for approval where Sherkston Beaches will have an open concept theme park where there will be commercial and recreational integration. It will be integrated and I suppose there will even be high-rise buildings as indicated in this proposal by the planner of the city of Port Colborne.

The white paper goes on to say, “approvals required under the Planning Act will become the responsibility of the approving authority under the Environmental Assessment Act. No bearing before the municipal board will be required and such proposals will be subject to only one comprehensive hearing.

“Where a public undertaking is subject to the Environmental Assessment Act and also requires approvals under the Planning Act, the same ‘streamlining’ arrangements will apply.”

As I said, I’m concerned about this particular amendment proposed by the minister. In the United States, for example, where they have high density high-rise buildings, there have been court decisions handed down that have some bearing on high-rise apartment and residential property that may be abutting a certain development plan where the residents have been deprived of perhaps one of nature’s best available products -- the sun.

I suggest to the minister another area he should be looking at where we have high-rise buildings, particularly in Toronto and other communities, is that no citizen or resident be denied the right of access to the sun. We are talking about solar energy in particular. I think the time is going to come very shortly when many home owners will be moving into the area of solar energy and they are certainly going to require the sun for that.

I will be passing on information concerning the city of Port Colborne’s application for official plan approval to this ministry and I suggest that the minister takes a serious look at this matter, because it is going to disrupt the whole community in the so-called hamlet of Sherkston.

There’s another matter I bring to the attention of the ministry. For development purposes, communities that have no services out in the country, which is strictly a rural community or area, under the present plans that are available now, or suggestions under the planning by the region and by the city planners in Port Colborne, any 10 homes in an area can be designated as a hamlet and land be subdivided.

If the minister is going to allow that to be permitted in the city of Port Colborne -- a subdivision some eight or nine miles outside the downtown core, where they lack potable water and sewer services -- he is going to compound the problem down there. I thought when we had regional government this was going to solve some of our problems and we wouldn’t permit that urban sprawl, but this proposal put forward by Sherkston Beaches and accepted by the council is irresponsible planning. I am going to forward all that information to the minister.

On this particular bill,

section 35a(2)(12), I would like to see, for development control purposes, all important matters of drawings and proposals for future development in any municipality made available to the public. This business where you can show a development-control site plan covers nothing. It just shows you the outside areas; it doesn’t actually tell you what’s going to take place in there.

For example, at Sherkston Beaches 10 per cent of that area will be used for buildings of some nature. It could be a motel, or it could be a hotel, or it could be indoor-outdoor tennis courts, or something like that, but 10 per cent of 600 acres is 60 acres of valuable lakefront property that’s going to disappear. In the Sherkston Beaches operation, the public now have access to that lakefront. That access could disappear under this proposal for development.

I’m going to support my colleague, who will be moving an amendment as it relates to

section 35a(2)(12) of the act, that all information must be provided to the public.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the minister I think it’s an absolute disgrace that he has ignored the consultation process that is supposed to be taking place with municipalities, the consultation that his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), promised to us yesterday during the consideration of his estimates. That minister promised to us that consultation was an on-going part of the government’s program with regard to municipal governments.

The minister knows that the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee process is in existence and in fact he had the opportunity just a few days ago to explain this to the PMLC. Yet the bill comes here today with an explanatory note that ends with a paragraph that reads: “The other provisions of the existing

section 35a providing for the entering into of agreements ... are basically unchanged.” It comes to us with an explanatory note that says that this very major and important change has been slid through without consultation with appropriate municipal representatives and without drawing to the attention of our caucus and the opposition party caucus that the change is there in the act. I really think that is quite an inappropriate way for the minister and for the government to proceed.

Having said that the consultation process wasn’t there, I’ve also just learned that there was a meeting on Tuesday, March 20, in the ministry’s offices, at which representatives of the city of Toronto, Scarborough, North York, London and Ottawa met with the minister’s staff to talk about this bill, to talk about the things that should be incorporated into it. The recollection of my contact is that that meeting agreed that some form of architectural review should be included in the Planning Act.

Yet we have the act brought forward now, at short notice, without adequate consultation. I think it’s to the credit of our caucus that we have initiated the consultative process with municipalities and I think it’s to our credit we have the contacts available who are able to respond to these kinds of things far quicker than the minister and his contacts seem able to.

There are other matters that concern us in this act, as my colleague has already outlined. I want to assure the minister that we will be doing everything possible to make sure that paragraph 12 is reintroduced into the design control provision of this act so that municipalities continue to have the powers available to them now, powers they are beginning to use and which form a crucial part of development control in the downtown areas of certain substantial municipalities.

I want to indicate to the minister that we will support an amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for Waterloo North, if that’s brought forward this afternoon, but we will make sure that the bill goes nowhere until that amendment is incorporated. If that means bringing members into this House in order to make sure that we get the consultative process that the minister should have implemented, then we will undertake that.

I hope the minister will assure us now that he will introduce the amendments that are so desperately needed and which should have been incorporated as a result of consultation with municipalities rather than having to come to this kind of forum to get the minister’s problems solved.

[3:45]

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address myself to this bill and particularly to paragraph 12 which has been eliminated from the act. I would like to give a for-instance of the implication so far as the city of Toronto is concerned.

I would remind the minister that cabinet not too long ago, in a proceeding which I still maintain is a corrupt proceeding, in the Annex area of my riding overruled a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board and sent a certain matter back to that board for further consideration.

One of the very nubs of that particular development was the opportunity for the city to bring into play design control. For the benefit of the minister, this is the area between Elgin and Prince Arthur on the west side of Avenue Road known as the Garden development. There was certainly a problem with both the densities and the coverages in that area. In effect, the action of the cabinet in sending it back to the OMB was really to breach

part 2 of the plan.

Inherent in that whole decision was the opportunity for the city to look at the elevations of the project and its design component. For example, in the north end of that development there was a stage of height control by elevation control which could enable the residents on Elgin to live with a rather large development in their vicinity. It wasn’t just the height control; it was the whole design of the project which had been very carefully worked out.

If this were to pass in principle or even go to committee, I would say that once more the city and, more important perhaps, the residents who spent several years in trying to accommodate to this kind of development, would feel frustrated. Already they feel very frustrated and cheated by the government by the fact that they had to spend $22,000 of their own money to support a plan, then the government blithely sent it back without any compensation for cost. In this bill, it is getting into something that is really a nitty-gritty item in the city of Toronto.

There is no question in my mind that through the years there has been criticism of the city for its lack of development -- that’s what most people have called it -- in the downtown core. There has been in part an accommodation to planning which would take into consideration the lifestyle of this city, which I think, on the whole, councils one after the other have maintained. Their major tool has been their opportunity for that kind of design control.

What the government will be doing, quite apart from what it may think about the right of a municipality to design its own lifestyle, in my view and in the view of others in the city, is to completely frustrate one more time the whole development process because then there will be no attempt to accommodate. One will simply go on the very narrow confines of the central area plan,

part 2, or whatever applies to a given section.

There is no question in my mind that we must ensure that

section 35a is restored to the bill. We recognize the procedural problems at this point in time. Because there isn’t an opportunity to introduce an amendment at this stage of the bill, as I see it, I would urge the minister himself to speak to this matter and to reintroduce this section, since my understanding is it is intended the bill should go out to committee and that

section should be in the bill when it is discussed and debated in that committee.

I regret I don’t know how many municipalities across Ontario have taken advantage of that section. I am advised that Toronto is not alone, but I can’t give any statistics on it. While any municipality is using that tool to protect what it believes is the interest of the residents of its municipality, it seems to me it is totally wrong to deprive it of that opportunity.

I can’t speak further on the matter, but I would urge the minister to at least allow this matter to be reincorporated for debate in committee so that we may have a full discussion of that provision. Otherwise, I am afraid I would have to take a position personally that this is a principle with which I cannot concur. I would hope the minister would not place us in that confrontation position. I think it is important to the planning of this province that we review the wishes of municipalities.

Goodness knows, in these days what you have done is to say: “We believe in municipal autonomy.” Translated it means: “We believe you should raise the funds for what you want to do, but when it comes to making your decisions, we believe we, as Big Brother, know best.” It is not the way to approach the municipalities. It is not the way to approach proper, adequate planning. We need the tool.

Mr. Renwick: I am sorry I was unable to be in the House during the course of the comments made both by my colleagues, by others and by members of the Liberal Party in respect to Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Planning Act. I do understand the minister has as yet made no statement of any kind. All I can do in a very brief way, since the minister didn’t choose to make a statement at the opening of second reading of the bill, is talk into the kind of vacuum I hope the minister will move in to fill at the time when he closes off the debate. I know that is an immense request to make of the minister, but I hope he will.

More than anything else the events of the last 24 hours, in my opinion, as they have developed with respect to the concerns the minister has raised among the municipalities that have taken advantage over the years of

section 35a leads me to believe this assembly requires the minister to level very clearly with us about what has taken place. If there are any misconceptions in my understanding of it, I hope the minister will feel quite free to say I am quite improperly informed or not informed adequately about the background of it.

I am interested only in one thing. I don’t really care at this point in the game whether or not I should or should not have had further information about it. I am concerned that the minister’s statement clearly and unequivocally states what the position of the ministry is with respect to the omission from this bill of the provision which has caused so much agitation. That provision is, of course, the existing provision of paragraph 12 of

section 35a(2) of the act as it presently stands. That is the provision which states that “Perspective drawings and plans showing building elevations and cross sections of industrial and commercial buildings and residential buildings containing 25 or more dwelling units,” will be contained in the presentations which are required in relation to development projects so that municipalities will have an opportunity to have some sense of design approval available to them in respect to the overall public interests served by the old

section 35a and the new

section 35a.

So, I want to know why there has been no apparent public discussion of this matter. There certainly isn’t any reference to it in any of the explanatory notes that accompany the bill. Why has the minister decided to omit the particular provision? So far as I am concerned, and I don’t pretend for a moment either to be sufficiently expert or to have studied in detail the white paper with respect to the Planning Act, why does there appear not to have been any significant discussion in that white paper about this particular provision in the existing

section 35a? Third, why does it appear from the way in which the matter has come to our attention, that in a very real sense, the municipalities have been caught by surprise by the omission from the bill of that provision?

I think we are entitled to have the information as to the course of the negotiations and discussions which led this ministry to produce the bill which omitted that particular provision. There are other provisions that are going to be matters of concern, but that’s true of all bills and those are matters which can quite properly be dealt with in a committee of the assembly in the ordinary way in dealing with amendments. But, when you come to a matter of such fundamental importance, a party such as ours is placed in a very difficult position because we have to await the so-called dynamics of the debate about the question of voting for or against the bill.

I don’t want the minister to misunderstand. It is our intention, unless the minister unequivocally states that he is going to propose an amendment in committee to reinstate the substance of paragraph 12 in

section 35a(2) as it presently stands, to oppose the bill on second reading. This caucus would have little other alternative

The next point, which is of major concern to us is that if we do not get that kind of unequivocal undertaking from the minister, then we are prepared, if necessary, to stand 20 members in their place in order to ensure that the bill goes out to a standing committee of the assembly and does not appear before the committee of the whole House.

I have heard -- again in the immense number of rumours that always crop up when we’re under this kind of pressure because of a failure by the government to give an adequate explanation of a problem which has arisen -- that the minister is going to refer it out to a standing committee. If so, then there will be no need for us to exercise our right under the rules to stand 20 members in their place in order to direct that the bill be considered in committee other than committee of the whole House.

Those are matters which appear to me to be of such significant importance that we have to have a complete levelling by the minister as to what is the background of the omission. If it is sheer inadvertence and misunderstanding of the implication, that’s fine. Confession is good for the soul; ignorance, once dispelled, is no particular vice. We are quite happy to have that kind of admission from the minister.

[4:00]

If, however, there are some other reasons and he has been subjected to other pressures, then we’d like to know what are the meetings at which the pressures took place, who were present and what indications he has given to anybody that he has a problem with this section. Is he going to await the unfolding of the events in committee to determine what his ultimate position is going to be? Is he going to make it clear for us or not clear?

I can only speak from the point of view of a representative of the city of Toronto which has an immense interest in the kind of provision of

section 35a which replaces the existing section. It has an immense interest in that there is a tremendous amount of time, effort and talent which goes in, as the minister is well aware, to these major multiple-type agreements that the city is a party to with respect to the redevelopment of the basic part of the inner of the city of Toronto.

The minister knows that when, as I understand it, the legal department of the city of Toronto -- for which I happen to have a very high regard and respect, and for which I am quite certain the minister’s advisers have a high regard and respect -- has tremors about the net effect and the fall-out of the proposed bill that is before us on both existing agreements and intended agreements for these multiple complexes which will not develop in the way that is consistent with the central core plan which the ministry itself has approved within only the last few days; when that kind of tremor is sent through the legal department amongst the experts in the city, from a legal point of view, who deal with these redevelopment matters, day in and day out, then there is a very profound obligation on the minister to dispel and allay those very real concerns that have been generated within the knowledgeable people in the city’s planning, legal and other departments.

This is not in any sense to be taken as a matter which is a political matter in the sense that it is a partisan political problem that has been created. This is a serious fundamental amendment to the Planning Act, related to the whole of the redevelopment of the city. It has had the net effect, because of its craftsmanship and because of this particular serious omission, of destabilizing all of the existing agreements with respect to the Eaton’s Centre Phase II, with respect to the tremendously complex College Park development, and with respect to the properties immediately on the north side of Dundas, known, I guess, as the Trizec lands, to name only three of them.

When one finds there are other agreements pending which are in the course of negotiation and which in a funny way have had to come to a halt because of the uncertainty created by the bill the minister has introduced, then he has an immense obligation, because of the long history and the long commitment of the city to the public interest in the kind of legitimate, equitable redevelopment which can take place, to dispel each and every one of those concerns and to dispel them promptly, clearly and concisely in this assembly and not to have the tremors of it reverberating for the next several days while we go through our ruminations about it.

As I say, there are other amendments which are the normal give and take of the interplay of any statute when one is trying to satisfy a number of groups. We can deal with that and the assembly is accustomed to dealing with that type of amendment in its committees.

But in this particular fundamental flaw in this bill which has caused this kind of concern in the city of Toronto -- and representing as I do one of the areas contiguous to this development area I have a particular and special interest in it -- it seems to me the minister has to level with us and has to come clean in the House this afternoon as to exactly what it’s all about -- why the omission, what the purpose of the omission was, was it intended and what he is going to do to give us some assurance that it will be replaced or not.

I don’t wish to emphasize the position of the city of Toronto unduly because it would appear to us there are significant concerns, in the planning departments and elsewhere, which are affected by

section 35a, in municipalities across the province. I don’t know the exact number, but I am advised somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 to 60 municipalities have taken advantage of the existing

section 35a. I am told they have, when it is drawn to their attention or they find out on their own initiative, significant concerns about it.

I do not understand it. I believe the intended omission of this item from the bill was not a matter which was discussed at the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee by the minister or his advisers, in order to try to make certain that municipalities were apprised of it in time.

I have some very real concerns when I know the minister’s own city has apparently somewhat similar concerns to the planning departments and others in the city of Toronto. These were reflected in the statement which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning about the position of the mayor of Toronto.

These arrangements are the result of very complex, lengthy, valuable, costly negotiations over a long period of time. If there is going to be destabilization of the legal framework within which those agreements are negotiated, then I do not think this government will want to bear the responsibility for the destabilization. I am calling on the minister, in a matter within the framework of important matters, a matter of essential need for this government, to move promptly to restore the kind of stability which existed. That stability will continue to exist if the minister will make a formal declaration in the assembly on second reading that he will accede to the request.

I have been informed that my colleagues in the Liberal Party are prepared to move and we will support -- or we will move and they will support -- an amendment in committee, at the appropriate time, to restore the particular section. I don’t think it calls for that kind of activity on this kind of an issue.

It seems to me the very destructive nature of this bill is such that the flaw in it must be removed now by the minister, at the time of second reading, by an unequivocal statement that he, himself, will reintroduce the missing provision in the bill.

I trust I have put the position of our caucus as clearly as it is possible to put it, so there will be no misunderstanding about our position, either by my colleagues in the Liberal Party or by the government, as to what course of action we intend on the bill. But I hope we will not be placed in a position where we must vote against, on second reading, a bill which is required. Such a bill, in a proper form, is needed urgently to fill the vacuum created by the quite proper but difficult decision of the Supreme Court of Canada now faced by the city of Toronto. I hope the minister will give us that kind of unequivocal answer to the questions I have tried to place unequivocally before you.

Mr. Makarchuk: I too would like to express some concerns about what is going on in this bill. I would also bring to the minister’s attention that in a sense, in Ontario, over a period of time, there has developed a reasonable process of planning. It was not perfect and it certainly can be adjusted and improved and the government is moving in that direction with the minister’s white paper.

But the point that has to be taken into account is that in that process there is an opportunity for local councils to give and take or barter with developers to try to protect neighbourhoods, to take into account the wishes of the people who live in those neighbourhoods and to ensure that the wishes are implemented in the plans for new developments going into various communities in this province.

What the minister has done in this bill is to eliminate that option for the people of Ontario by denying them the right to continue to have input into the planning process. It bothers me to find out that he has brought this in without taking into account the consequences that can and probably will happen if this legislation ever gets through.

The usual propensity of developers is to try to maximize the units, the densities and so on; in most cases they have very little concern for neighbourhood. Their interest is financial gain because that is what they are all about. This is not to be critical of them, but that is how they operate. What the minister is in effect going to permit will bring a reaction from various neighbourhood groups and citizen groups.

He is going to encourage confrontation in the planning processes in Ontario; he is going to have more angry people storming city councils; he is going to bring on all sorts of new Ontario Municipal Board hearings and he is going to have appeals to the cabinet and appeals to the divisional court.

This is the kind of future this bill would create for the people of this province. I worry as to why the minister responsible for this would bring it on. In many cases of appeals, the OMB will probably base its decision on this bill and then the appeals will be made to cabinet. It will be the necks of the minister and the cabinet that will be on the line in terms of what goes into certain neighbourhoods.

Unless at that time the minister makes a decision in favour of the people, he will certainly have to take the political fallout. Why go through such a process when there is in effect right now a process whereby the wishes of the people on the local elected councils are relevant and can have the proper planning effect on new developments? Why the minister tries to remove it is something I can’t understand.

Before this debate is over I hope when the minister makes his windup speech he will give some commitment as to what he intends to do, as was pointed out by the various speakers on this bill earlier today.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have listened with interest and also concern to the remarks raised by members representing the opposition. The member for Waterloo North drew my attention to the fact that paragraph 12 under 35a(2) of the present Planning Act had been deleted. There is an inference from the comments of two or three other speakers that somebody was trying to slip something through or to process a piece of legislation without proper and adequate input from people at the municipal level or from members represented on the other side of the House.

The bill was introduced in this House on May 17. I would surely think that in the two weeks or more since then there has been ample opportunity for developing one’s arguments for or against the bill or requesting amendments, whether at this level or at the municipal level. In order that there is no misunderstanding, my ministry representatives met with a subcommittee of the Municipal Liaison Committee to review, at my request, the proposed new

section 35a, because some 75 municipalities in this province have enacted their own bylaws under the old

section 35a and now find themselves, as the member for Riverdale said, in somewhat of a difficult position.

We reviewed it with them and we reviewed it with other interested bodies that had been party to the legal case on which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on January 31, 1979. We have, in my opinion, tried to cover the waterfront in a very specific way with those people in the city of Toronto representing that municipality in the field of planning. I am not saying it was done at the political level; it was done at the administrative level or the planners’ level. The general act being presented here was reviewed with them.

[4:15]

On the first occasion that I became aware of some concerns in the municipal sector -- and it is not from lack of consultation with them -- obviously in reviewing the bill, their outside legal counsel, I gather, determined that paragraph 12 should not be eliminated under subsection 7 of the previous act and that it should be retained.

At the time we discussed this particular subsection being dropped there appeared to be ample opportunities for the municipality to secure site-plan situations on a particular site being developed and to indicate the type of landscaping that would be required or demanded by the planning board and council.

I repeat again that it was only late last week -- on Friday, if I recall correctly -- that the mayor of this community, through his people, indicated to my ministry that they had some concerns for paragraph 12.

At this point I have not received any official communication from the city of Ottawa in relationship to paragraph 12 of

section 35a (2) of the act. But I did receive from the mayor of the city of Ottawa a letter relating to this amendment but dealing with another problem entirely which the planning board of that city would like to have reviewed.

Obviously, if I am to take the letter of the mayor of the city of Ottawa of May 24 as being some indication of the fact that they legally have reviewed the bill, and that their planners have reviewed the bill, there was no comment raised in relation to paragraph 12 of 35a(2).

I can appreciate that some people feel we are extracting some of the authority of the municipality, which is far from what I wish to do. I said clearly in the white paper presentation a week ago that we were attempting to give back to the municipalities, upon their request, more and more authority on how they are to handle the planning and development of their communities. Far be it from this ministry to want to reduce in any way the authority of the municipalities in designing and developing their community, because they live in it and they have to live with whatever mistakes or improvements they make. Far be it from us to wish in any way to take away from a municipality.

Obviously, though, at the time of reviewing paragraph 12 there were some misgivings as to its need, because of the time factor, as to whether municipalities in all cases had taken paragraph 12 and properly applied it; whether municipalities should get themselves into the position under paragraph 12 -- from my understanding of it -- where some would dictate the quality or colour of brick, for example, for the exterior of a particular building. There should be some flexibility, I would hope, left for the imagination of the private world of architects and not only those employed by municipalities.

Clearly we are in no way, shape or form trying to sneak anything through in this new

section 35(a). It is our attempt to make sure that if we amend the act that it will stand the light of day -- and, indeed’, the trial of another court case if that should ever take place -- and that it will give to the municipalities the authority and the control of designing and developing their communities as they, the politicians at the local level, see fit to include.

I would like to touch on one other point that was raised by the member for Parkdale and touched on by two or three other members in talking about existing agreements between municipalities and developers throughout the province.

The question is appropriately and well asked as to what happens to those agreements, and why we should not certify them or qualify them to continue to be in existence in this province, legally. Legal counsel has indicated to us clearly that the whole

section 35(

a) was under question, which could very well nullify some of the agreements that are in place at present throughout the various municipalities.

There’s another very important point of which I think this House should be aware. Obviously, this province is not fully aware of the total range of the matters which the municipalities have included in the past agreements. Many of them, I say to the member for Waterloo North, are beyond the terms of the Planning Act, from a legal point of view.

I would find it rather difficult to suggest to this House that the government of this province should enact a piece of legislation which would certify or validate previous agreements that could very well be once again involved in a court case to decide whether a government has the right to validate something that was far beyond the laws of the day in which it was enacted.

On the other hand, in talking to some of the municipalities, I think they’re firmly of the opinion they can validate them. For some of the agreements, while there might be conditions in them that could very well be contested, most of the developers having entered into those agreements, and also in respect of the fact they’re going to ask to enter into other site-plan agreements and so on in the future, would more than likely find ways of validating them between the municipality and the developer him or herself, or their companies.

I’m not sure I understood all of the remarks made by the member for Erie, particularly because I do not have the plan from Port Colborne the member talked about. I would find it difficult to try and comment on some of the spot developments and so on. The member will appreciate some of that has come about, not as a result of

section 35a, but as a result of land severance committees or committees of adjustment. They have allowed for infilling to a greater extent than what should have been, in my opinion, allowed to develop, for the reasons of water supply and environment, as the member has said.

I am not one who enjoys seeing urban sprawl as we fly over Ontario. One has to wonder how it will ever be adequately serviced either by those amenities most communities want or indeed, by the other more important ones, water and sewers, for the protection of the general public of Ontario. I would be pleased to review further with the member for Erie those things relating to Port Colborne.

I would say in due course, in the discussion of the white paper by municipalities throughout the province and by other organizations, the facts that relate to environmental assessment re the Planning Act can be brought out, as well as how we can have one joint hearing rather than going through dual hearings, which only complicate the subject and raise costs, both for those appealing and for the government of the day.

The member for St. George spoke on the problem of Garden development in the Annex, which is to the north of the Legislative Building, on Avenue Road. Obviously there were some very direct concerns, relating to both density and coverage, which even under the proposed amendment, or Bill 96, would have given the municipality the flexibility in controlling heights as long as the developer did not lose the overall maximum square footage allowed within the construction of the project.

I make it very clear to the member for Riverdale, who said he wanted the position made clear, that we have gone through what we consider to be public discussions with groups that were duly involved and responsible, both to the Municipal Liaison Committee and for some municipalities. I will admit we did not go individually to London, Windsor, Hamilton, Stoney Creek and Ottawa. We went to the municipality, first of all, that was principally involved in the court case, which was the city of Toronto, under its bylaw 419-74.

The member for Brantford raised questions on responsible process. Indeed, that is exactly what the white paper intends to bring into this province -- a responsible process of planning and development which may be a little more sophisticated. It will be more sophisticated because we think there’s competence and quality of planners within municipal staff today that didn’t exist some years ago. That’s why we brought forward the white paper and the amendment to the Planning Act, which we hope will help further the development of the province.

I must say the member’s remarks relating to this

section and how we could get through the Ontario Municipal Board and eventually be referred back to the minister escape me completely, since it is not an item that is put into that position of an appeal to the OMB.

May I conclude by saying that while I have indicated our discussions with CIPREC -- the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, which is the group of firms here in Toronto which appealed the bylaw originally -- my staff has met with representatives of the Municipal Liaison Committee, as I said, and with specific employees of the city of Toronto; and recently we have had notices from this municipality, and indeed I understand legal counsel has called the city of Ottawa and the other communities and suggested to them that they now review the old paragraph 12 under

section 35a(2) of the act.

I have no desire to leave with this House, or the people of this province, or the municipalities the idea that we’re trying to reduce their authority in trying to build an appropriate community. I am willing to accept the views of the opposition and review with my legal counsel a proposed amendment that would likely come into

section 35a(7) (

a) of the bill, and without saying definitely that it would be paragraph 10 or what, it would likely fit into that particular area. I would trust that would put to rest some of the uncertainties that seem to prevail in the minds of the opposition at this time that we were anxious to reduce the ability of municipal councils to effectively design and develop their communities in any way, shape or form.

My concluding remark is that I’m not aware at this moment of opposition by any particular group to having paragraph 12 removed -- pardon me, anyone who is objecting to having paragraph 12 as it was reinstated into Bill 96. I’m sure the development industry that expressed some concerns at the time of the court case felt it was a delaying feature and that sometimes it didn’t give flexibility for them and their private architects to do what they believed was good design and development and that at times far too many bureaucratic opinions were expressed by other than political forces at the municipal level on exactly what the characteristics of a building should be.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that we will look at the possibility of bringing forward an amendment to

section 35a(7) (a), which will likely be under paragraph 10 of that subsection.

Mr. Dukszta: I don’t understand --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We don’t allow a member to speak any more than once on second reading. I’m sure the bill will go to committee and there will be ample time for a clause-by-clause analysis, or clarification at that time.

Mr. Makarchuk: On a point of clarification, what assurance do we have that it is going to committee? Has the minister committed that it should go to committee?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m open to suggestions that it go to committee of the whole House or to standing committee. The only point I would like to raise in relationship to going to the standing committee is that the ministry and my staff are committed to a rather extensive touring of the province in relationship to the white paper, commitments have been made and staff will obviously have to be in attendance; either that or the necessity of the minister to cancel those meetings and to try and re-schedule them at some other date to review the white paper with all municipalities in this province.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Is it my understanding that the bill should not be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I get a point of clarification? I don’t think that the minister is doing justice to this House in trying to clarify exactly what he is going to do. That is both in regard to paragraph 12 of 35a and with respect to where this bill is going to be amended.

Mr. Speaker: The member is raising the very same question that the member for Parkdale raised.

Mr. Epp: I think, to do justice to the House, we do deserve a clarification on it. I don’t think we have had the benefit of one from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Let me put the question. What is the wish of the House with regard to Bill 96?

[4:30]

Mr. Makarchuk: Committee outside the House.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: It is the discretion of the minister to direct it to the appropriate committee.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable the minister have an opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not really, Mr. Speaker. I will be asking that this bill go to committee of the whole House as I propose to introduce two amendments to the bill. Copies of these amendments have been distributed to the opposition critics: an amendment to

section 10 to include ambulances as emergency vehicles and an amendment to

section 12 relating to the carrying of retarded adults on school buses, which was the subject of the private resolution of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) a few weeks ago.