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

November 2, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

DR. ERIC ARTHUR

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

NATIVE RIGHTS

TAX BURDEN

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

BOROUGH OF YORK REVIEW

DRESSER CANADA

SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING

FRENCH-LANGUAGE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS

PETITIONS

START CENTRE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR PRICING ACT

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

DR. ERIC ARTHUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Later]

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

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

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

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

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

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

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

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

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

VISITORS

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

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

Would members of the assembly please welcome the Italian delegation?

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' FEES

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley: Bette agrees. She is nodding.

Mr. Peterson: The minister agrees.

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Martel: Don't play niceties.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATIVE RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:20 p.m.

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

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

lnterjections.

An hon. member: Particularly tile drainage.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said some.

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

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

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

schedule another date to meet.

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

TAX BURDEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

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

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

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

2:30 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Foulds: That is what you said.

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

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

Mr. Foulds: It's secret.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOROUGH OF YORK REVIEW

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

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

preamble.

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

lnterjections.

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

An hon. member: It was read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: The answer is?

Interjections.

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

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

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

Mr. Roy: Oh yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Miss Stephenson: An NDP turned Liberal.

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

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

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

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

2:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Martel: A new question.

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

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

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

DRESSER CANADA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Please allow the minister to conclude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could quote an

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

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

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

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

SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING

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

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

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Up to.

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

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

3 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRENCH-LANGUAGE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS

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

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

3:10 p.m.

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

In looking at the record, I have to say there are so few incidents, if any, arising in the course of a year that the situation is relatively under control.

PETITIONS

START CENTRE

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

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

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

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

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

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

Motion agreed to,

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAIR PRICING ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 184,

An Act to provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

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

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Kerr moved, seconded by Mr. Havrot, first reading of Bill Pr43,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 91,

An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act;

Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act;

Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act;

Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Horticultural Societies Act;

Bill 171,

An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act;

Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act.

3:20 p.m.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

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

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

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

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

There are a couple of other things that bother me. One is the reference in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

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

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: He is embarrassingly aggressive.

3:30 p.m.

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

Mr. Epp: Justifiably so.

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

The minister will understand that in today's Ontario, in today's Canada, it is hard for us to accept the fact that those people over all these years were so tolerant and accepted something that as so illogical.

I have talked about it on many occasions, only as far as legislation is concerned but also even as far as the courts are concerned: how the francophones of Ontario, who are bona fide citizens of this country and of this province, were forced through all these years into a situation where they could not govern themselves, even locally -- never mind getting services from the Ontario government, but even locally -- and could not enact regulations, legislation or bylaws in their own language.

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

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

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

"We are going to give services according to a discretion that is more or less definite. We do not like the idea of being regimented by laws. The rights of all other citizens of Ontario are determined by legislation, but francophones should not be too greedy. Do not ask us to enact legislation guaranteeing your rights, because if you do that, it is not fair; it is not the way we like to do it. We think you should accept our promise.

You should just accept the fact that we are saying to you, 'Look, we are going to do it for you, and if on a particular day you step into an office, and we made a promise that on that day we would give you service, and the civil servant who speaks French does not happen to be there, that's too bad. Or if the civil servant on that particular day does not feel like speaking French to you, or we do not feel like answering your letter in French, or we don't feel like giving you French-language services, come back tomorrow. We'll see what happens tomorrow. We may have a different attitude.'"

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

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

In other areas, especially in the field of education, we have further guarantees given by way of legislation.

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

3:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Il devrait également s'assurer qu'il accordera les fonds nécessaires pour que certaines municipalités puissent satisfaire aux nécessités que cette loi va susciter. Je suis certain, Monsieur le Président, que mes collègues--surtout celui de Timmins--vont se rendre compte que dans une époque difficile sur le plan économique comme celle que nous vivons, certaines municipalités risquent d'être réticentes à présenter des règlements dans les deux langues en raison de la hausse du coût que cela va engendrer: et les citoyens vont peut-être critiquer en disant ne pas vouloir voir augmenter leurs impôts.

Il faudrait être sûr, Monsieur le Président, que ce ne sera pas le cas. Il faut s'assurer que des secteurs de la province ne nieront pas un droit fondamental à leur minorité à cause du coût. J'espère que le gouvernement va octroyer les fonds nécessaires pour encourager--surtout au début--la prestation de services dans les deux langues, au niveau municipal.

3:50 p.m.

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

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

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

We still have one standard in all legislation, in many statutes provincially, that says you have to be a Canadian citizen or British subject. That does not make sense today especially in a province such as this and in a city such as this, where we have groups from all over the world living. It does not make sense to treat one sector of our population differently. It does not make sense that we say to people who happen to be from Pakistan, who are considered to be British subjects, that they can vote.

I may be wrong about Pakistan but, if they are from India or Australia, we say to them: "If you happen to be from that area, you can vote as long as you have the residency requirement." If they happen to be from the United States --

Mr. Epp: Or from Buffalo.

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

Mr. Nixon: The Falkland Islands.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Rotenberg: Also the provincial elections.

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

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

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

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

The issue of British subjects is clearly against the charter. The charter states that Canadian citizens are the ones who are entitled to vote in municipal and provincial elections. In a matter of a very few years,

section 15, which talks about equality before the law, will strike down any legislation that gives preference to a group of citizens because of their place of origin.

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

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

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

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

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

4 p.m.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: You will have your time.

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, Mr. Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Rotenberg: I let you make your point.

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

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

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

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

4:16 p.m.

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

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

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

I also want to differ from my colleague for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) with respect to the final portion of this

section of the bill, which I think is patronizing, paternalistic, overbearing and undesirable and should be removed. This is the

section that says to the municipalities that, while they can prepare documents in French and that is their right, for goodness' sake do not try to make the province of Ontario understand them.

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

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

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

Mr. Harris: You made it up.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was all sweetness and light. He said everybody supports this. While we definitely support the principle that is involved here of recognizing the rights of municipalities to be bilingual, and there is no question about that because we were there a long time before this government was, what I am suggesting is the

section of the bill has been badly drafted. The

section of the bill should have been rethought before it was put in. Now that it is here, one of our functions in this Legislature is to seek to improve it and to seek to make it better than it was when it came in.

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

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

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

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

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

4:20 p.m.

For a long time, people in our party have suggested that municipal government is the government very close to people and the one that deals with such issues as streets, community centres, recreation, welfare services, services to people and that kind of thing.

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

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

Mr. Rotenberg: How is your Polish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions about capital punishment, abortion and energy conservation, all kinds of questions will in fact be legitimized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stokes: Is there reciprocity?

4:30 p.m.

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

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

I thought it was important to set out that distinction because, now that we have not only our Constitution but a national anthem and a variety of other Canadian aspects, we will continue to do ourselves a disservice to allow this kind of tradition to remain. At one time in our history it had some merit; there is no question about that. When those coming to Canada and to Ontario were most likely coming from the British Isles, where the forms of government were similar, to be able to vote after one year's residence was not unreasonable in those days. But those days are long since past, as the Empire is past.

A commonwealth of nations, freely associating with each other under the recognition or formal operation of the monarchy, has developed in a most substantial and pleasing way to me as someone who is a very strong proponent of the Canadian monarchy.

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

section 1 where we define persons entitled to vote, that its time has come.

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

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

Alors, nombre de mes électeurs vont se demander pourquoi en Ontario, a l'Assemblée législative, vous n'avez un projet de loi que maintenant…cent quinze ans après la Confédération. Pourquoi discuter des droits des francophones au niveau municipal? Pourquoi discuter de cette question quatre ans après le fameux référendum au Québec? Pourquoi en discuter dans le seul contexte municipal, et non au niveau provincial? Pourquoi ne pas avoir une politique globale dans le contexte provincial?

Pourquoi ne pas discuter d'une politique qui reconnaisse les droits fondamentaux linguistiques de la minorité francophone en Ontario? Il y a quatre ans, je crois, que j'ai présenté mon projet de loi pour une reconnaissance officielle des droits linguistiques de la population francophone en Ontario. C'était l'année où nous avons eu un débat sur le projet de loi présenté par mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est, projet que le Premier ministre a malheureusement fait avorter.

Je crois que le projet de loi que nous avons devant nous aujourd'hui montre le manque de leadership du Premier ministre de l'Ontario vis-à-vis des droits linguistiques de notre minorité. Il est vrai que nous avons fait des progrès quant aux services offerts à la population francophone: par exemple, dans le domaine de la santé, dans le domaine juridique et celui de l'enseignement. Mais la chose dont nous manquons le plus, c'est le symbolisme. Nous avons besoin que le Premier ministre, le gouvernement de l'Ontario, reconnaissent les droits fondamentaux des francophones.

Nous faisons des progrès par ci par là, et je pense que le projet de loi présenté aujourd'hui est un signe de progrès. Mais nous manquons d'une reconnaissance officielle. Monsieur Hatfield, Premier ministre conservateur, l'a fait au Nouveau-Brunswick: il a reconnu que les francophones n'ont pas seulement besoin de lois ou de changements, mais d'un symbolisme: la reconnaissance officielle de leurs droits, de leur position dans leur province. Le Manitoba l'a fait il y a cent douze ans, dans l'Acte de la Confédération. Ici en Ontario, le système est très différent.

Nous faisons le travail par petits morceaux, mais nous manquons de l'élément le plus important qui est la reconnaissance des droits fondamentaux dans le cadre d'un projet de loi général.

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

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

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

I only wish the Premier of this province had the same courage, the same foresight and the same basic guts and commitment that Richard Hatfield has demonstrated towards the minority in his province.

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

4:40 p.m.

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

section 7 would adequately protect the rights of someone in a situation such as that in Penetanguishene.

My colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) made some worthwhile suggestions regarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Samis: Okay. Dealing with the very first

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

Beyond that, my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has outlined our party's position on the other components of the bill. I welcome the progress represented in

section 7, but I do not think it is strong enough. And I emphasize again that I do not consider the use of French at the municipal level to be a privilege; in Ontario, I think it is a right.

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

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

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

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

We have tried with these composite bills to put things that might be very controversial into separate bills. The point is that it is in our system that these bills do go to committee of the whole House. If members from any party wish to object to a clause, they have the right to refer the matter to committee to debate that

section separately and to register in committee of the whole their objection to it by voting against the clause or by moving an amendment to delete the clause. The system has worked well. I do not think it has been abused by the government or by members of the opposition. While it certainly is not perfect, I think the alternative, to have a number of separate bills introduced, is unnecessary in the context of this House.

The member for Oshawa also raised a problem about

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

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

I would point out to the member for Ottawa East -- if he was within range and I certainly hope someone in his party will point it out to him -- that

section of the Charter of Rights does not take effect until some time in 1984 or 1985. It is not in effect at the moment. Therefore, a court challenge based on the equal rights' provision would not stand up for this municipal election.

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

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

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

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

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

4:50 p.m.

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

"Municipalities are eligible to receive:

"(

a) Reimbursement of 50 per cent of actual municipal costs, up to a maximum of $50,000 each year per mu