The House resumed at 8 p.m.

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McCaffrey, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Baetz, moved second reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable parliamentary assistant have an opening statement?

Mr. McCaffrey: I do, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The primary purpose of this amendment is to clarify the wording of section 37 of the act, specifically to enable municipalities to enter into heritage easement agreements with owners of real property for the conservation of buildings of historic or architectural value or interest.

When the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974 was first enacted, it was clearly intended that municipalities would be authorized to embark on easement programs to protect heritage buildings. Since then, several municipalities have approved in principle the taking of heritage easements, but unfortunately they have been unable to proceed with such a program because legal questions have been raised as to the express authority of municipalities to do so under the existing legislation.

In proposing this amendment, the ministry is responding to the requests of several municipalities which wish to further their ability to protect heritage buildings at the local level. By encouraging municipalities to engage in heritage easement programs, new impetus will be given to heritage preservation in the province. These local programs will complement the ongoing heritage easement program which is operated at the provincial level by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

The participation of municipalities as partners of the Ontario Heritage Foundation in broadly based heritage preservation programs, is in fact a keynote of the Ontario Heritage Act. Under this proposed amendment to section 37, local inhabitants will be able to work with their municipal governments to preserve buildings which are of special significance to their communities.

Mr. Ruston: Point of order. I wonder if you would check to see if there is a quorum in the House; I don’t believe there is.

Mr. Haggerty: There is not an NDP member in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a quorum. Would the honourable parliamentary assistant continue.

Mr. McCaffrey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I think it might be appropriate if I just backtrack a wee bit for the benefit of my New Democratic Party colleagues so they catch the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. Bounsall: Take it as all read.

Mr. Foulds: You can backtrack any time you want; your party is a master at that.

Mr. McCaffrey: By encouraging municipalities to engage in heritage easement programs, which is really the purpose of tonight’s amendment, new impetus will be given to heritage preservation in the province. These local programs will complement the ongoing heritage easement program which is operated at the provincial level by the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

The participation of municipalities as partners of the Ontario Heritage Foundation in broadly based heritage preservation programs, is in fact a keynote of the Ontario Heritage Act. Under this proposed amendment to section 37, local inhabitants will be able to work with their municipal governments to preserve buildings which are of special significance to their communities.

Bill 71 proposes a further amendment to the existing section 37(1) by eliminating the necessity for municipalities to designate buildings before taking heritage easements. It is anticipated that this amendment will simplify heritage easement programs and make it less expensive for municipalities to acquire heritage easements.

Finally, Bill 71 proposes that sections 22 and 37 be amended by adding a provision whereby, should a property be both designated and subject to a heritage easement, the terms of the heritage easement shall prevail. This amendment will effectively avoid a possible conflict between the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974 and the terms of an easement agreement.

The ministry places a high priority on the passage of Bill 71. Several municipalities are now waiting to sign heritage easement agreements with owners of historic buildings. Without these amendments, municipal heritage easement programs cannot proceed. These amendments themselves are essentially of a housekeeping nature and are intended to encourage local heritage initiatives at the municipal government level. I have nothing further to say at this time, other than to request the support of all members of this House for this bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 71. My colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), who is the critic for this ministry, had a commitment in his constituency this evening and he asked me to carry the bill on our behalf.

May I, first of all, commend the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, because this is the first opportunity I have had to see a compendium of this nature with respect to a bill. It has proved to be a most helpful compilation, not only of the present sections of the bill but also the proposed ones, together with some examples of the kinds of agreements that are being entered into in order to attempt to safeguard some of the particular and peculiar buildings that are in the province, ones that are worthy of preservation and yet the preservation of which should be done in accordance with their ongoing use and activity within the community.

I understand that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has viewed this bill, and at least unofficially the response has been favourable to the ministry in bringing forward this legislation. It is true, I suppose, that to a degree some form of municipal autonomy is in principle slightly interfered with by legislation of this sort. However, the intent of the bill is really to protect the interest of municipalities, as I see it, in saving historic sites.

Presumably if there has been any real complaint about the operations of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, it was really that it hasn’t been able to become involved enough in helping municipalities protect and encourage the development of their historic buildings. Bill 71 also has appeal to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in that it places more emphasis on the province for preserving heritage properties. I think this is considered appropriate since it is particularly a provincial responsibility.

I was interested in reviewing an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 9 concerning certain buildings on Old Mill Road in Etobicoke. It appeared to me from the photographs that these buildings, two very nice homes at 71 and 73 Old Mill Road, might not necessarily be included as historic buildings, but they certainly appear from the photographs that accompany this article to be very handsome structures and well worthy of consideration by a municipality as to the stock of particular buildings and projects which any one municipality may have within its boundaries.

That’s an example of two buildings which could, and indeed may prove to be lost. Whether they are particularly worthy of preservation is not a decision we would have to face here. However, in the eyes of their own citizens within that community, and limited to the opportunities that council or a local heritage or historical society might have, these are the kinds of projects, depending upon the age or the style of the community, that are worthy of consideration as we look to the implementation of this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to allow municipalities to make the kinds of easement agreements with owners for the purpose of protecting buildings with a local historic interest. The Ontario Heritage Foundation is still going to act to protect structures of regional or provincial interest and it will continue to be empowered to make the easement agreements or convenants where it might be necessary to do so.

As a person who has been involved in the Waterloo Historical Society over a number of years, it is a pleasure for me to see the developing interest that people have, not necessarily because of their particular background in architecture or history within a community, but as citizens who see a link with the past, an attractive building, a particular site being torn clown or threatened with destruction and being replaced with something that obviously has very little architectural merit.

[8:15]

This bill is meant to improve the present situation where municipalities really haven’t any authority to protect the property after the 270-day official designation period. That period, of course, has proven to be useful as a stall tactic against immediate or indiscriminate alteration or destruction by an owner, and as well that delay provides some time for a community to mobilize the people who are interested in helping to save a particular site where it is of proven value.

I am sure that most members of the House would agree that simply because a building is of a certain age, this does not necessarily guarantee it has architectural merit or that there are not other buildings within a community that might be more worthy of preservation. But the designation of a building, which we have seen on occasion by municipalities in the province, is really not an effective method of heritage conservation. The minister I think acknowledges that fact, and he has introduced this bill to bring forward the kind of amendments that are going to be useful to preserve and assist in the preservation of a variety of structures within the province.

As the parliamentary assistant has mentioned, there are certain municipalities at present waiting for the passage of this legislation so they can proceed with particular projects. I understand that Toronto, Ottawa, Kingston, and as well the municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, are among those municipalities interested in attempting to proceed with certain projects which they believe to be in the best interests of their own community when they look at the history and the particular items worthy of preservation within their own municipalities.

I am not certain how the members of the third party may face this legislation. I understood that perhaps they viewed the handing of this power to municipalities for the designation of heritage buildings somewhat uncertainly in that the operation by the provincial government would be a better way of dealing with the subject. I think the responsibility for heritage protection may well, in most cases, be a responsibility that should rest with the province. However, I also think we have an opportunity here to have something in addition to the provincial responsibility, something which can be dealt with at the municipal level and an intelligent balance struck as to how we can best preserve these various projects.

In this bill there are really three particular principles. The first one, of course, as is set out in the second section, is for the municipalities to convince the property owners to enter into an easement agreement; and for this to happen, in some cases certainly monetary incentives are going to have to be offered. It may not be enough simply to designate a structure of a building or a façade, but rather there are going to have to be some costs involved in ensuring that the maintenance or the protection of those particular areas may be something which the owner of the building is prepared to accept.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation in the past has provided grants of 10 to 15 per cent of the value of buildings to assist in this preservation and that, indeed, may also become a requirement or an expectation if a municipality chooses to become involved. However, that is a matter of the contract between the parties, and I am certain that can be worked out by persons on both sides, persons involved at the municipal government level or through heritage or historical groups that believe the provision of those public funds is worthy; and as well the owners and occupiers of buildings who would prefer to have the structures maintained if that financial differential could be of assistance and could be reasonable in the circumstances.

The amendments we see in the bill will leave that financial burden with the municipalities. I would suggest that the parliamentary assistant should give some consideration to the plight that some of the smaller municipalities or perhaps some of those in northern Ontario that have a less strong tax base would have in being prepared to commit those funds to particular local projects, when there are so many other things to which they must address their attention and for which they have limited resources.

It may be, for example, in northern Ontario that a particular building in a community is very much an important part of the heritage of that community. Yet the funds necessary to upgrade it or to ensure that it continues may be a bit of a strain on the tax base or on the opportunities which that community has as it looks at the other portions of its budget. There may be some requirement for the funds of the Ontario Heritage Foundation to be somewhat available to a degree in particular circumstances for the municipality that has something worthy to maintain and for which the ownership is not a requirement by the foundation. That kind of middle ground may be a development which would be for the benefit of both the foundation and the municipalities, as well as the owners and occupants of the building, and more importantly, for the people of the municipalities and for the province.

The second particular item deals with that area of local autonomy to which I had referred. There could be a certain tension which may only be partially resolved by the actions set out in Bill 71. It’s my understanding that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has no particular bill and that suggestions have been made over the years from time to time that amendments of this nature should be available to municipalities to bridge the gap between ownership and strong involvement by the Heritage Foundation and the alternative of destruction or desecration of a particular historic site.

The responsibility for heritage conservation, it can well be argued, should be the particular domain of the provincial government. But we do have this opportunity to have some middle ground, as I had suggested. I think that second issue of autonomy versus provincial responsibility can be met with the goodwill that’s necessary in ensuring that this kind of provision of support for these structures and for these various locations is encouraged.

The third point that does arise as a matter of principle out of this act is to inquire into the steps which the ministry itself has taken to protect government buildings. Honourable members will no doubt recall that I have introduced a private member’s bill with respect to the preservation of this building. The whole idea of having a curator of Queen’s Park with perhaps a distinguished architect, someone like Eric Arthur or someone with interest in the historic sites within the province, would be the kind of a sounding board which would be very useful in ensuring that structural changes in a building such as this are not made without full consideration of what is being done and how things may be developed in the future.

Mr. Lawlor: Particularly the Amethyst Room.

Mr. Breithaupt: I was going to speak to the Amethyst Room, as the member for Lakeshore has suggested. The wallpaper isn’t exactly what I would have chosen, but, on the other hand, to see the old post office room, those who have been here for a few years remember it, turned into a very attractive and useful committee room is the kind of thing which I find very encouraging.

Mr. Lawlor: If you bring your constituents there, you’ll never get elected again.

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t know whether that’s the case or not.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a palatial unnecessity.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let’s just say that not only can the committee rooms, hopefully, be developed and made more useful and attractive but their historic structure can be preserved.

As part of this bill, when we look at that other legislation to which I have referred briefly, the ministry has a responsibility not only to assist in the encouragement of the preservation of a variety of building sites across the province but to look particularly at its own inventory of structures. I don’t know whether there is an inventory of historic properties which are either owned or controlled by the province of Ontario. It may be, for example, that the odd liquor-store site in downtown Toronto happens to be in a very handsome building and that the building should not be interfered with, even though the use of a certain floor space or area might change from time to time.

I think it’s worthwhile to look into that kind of thing because, as we can tell from the students and young people in the galleries here this evening, there are many people who are becoming more and more interested in the preservation of our heritage in an intelligent way. Obviously, every building may not be successfully taken care of and may be a duplication, but there are so many gems of architecture and style across the province in a variety of building forms that are worthy of being developed and maintained that we run a serious risk unless we deal with these projects soon.

I do suggest, therefore, that there are these particular points to which the parliamentary assistant may wish to address himself as we complete the debate on second reading. I believe that the bill is worthy of support. I congratulate the ministry in bringing it in so that we will have it before this session is complete in the next several weeks, and that the summer months will not be lost, otherwise, to the provision of a location here or there across the province which would be irretrievably lost without this legislation perhaps being available to assist them.

Mr. Grande: I’m happy to rise and speak for a short time on Bill 71, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974. I do agree with the speaker from the government side and the Liberal member who stood up to speak on this particular bill that this bill strengthens the designation of a particular heritage building. The designation is very limited. It will only go on for 270 days and after that particular time the heritage building can be demolished or altered.

If the municipality or the Ontario Heritage Foundation is able to get involved in a voluntary agreement with the owner of a particular heritage building, then the easement or the covenant that is produced is much more lasting and will be there forever. In that particular sense, this bill is a good thing. As a matter of fact, I have recommended to my colleagues that we would be supporting this bill on second reading.

However, there are two particular principles which the previous speaker mentioned in this bill. One principle is that if the Ontario Heritage Foundation has entered into an easement or covenant with an owner, then the designation provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, no longer apply so that a particular municipality does not have the need to designate that particular building because that building is already protected.

However, as I understand it, the municipality still has the opportunity to designate buildings on which the Ontario Heritage Foundation does not hold an easement or a covenant with an owner. Therefore, in a sense, we’re talking about 20 to 23 buildings on which the Ontario Heritage Foundation hold an easement at this particular time and, I understand, in about 10 of them right now that is being transacted with owners. We’re really talking about a very minuscule number of heritage buildings in this province when we talk about easements that the Ontario Heritage Foundation has at this particular time.

[8:30]

The first principle is, if there is an easement between the Ontario Heritage Foundation and an owner, then the designation is no longer valid. The municipality no longer needs to designate, and that’s that. If there is no easement, the municipality still has the power under section 34 of the Heritage Act, 1974, to so designate.

However, it is a limited power, as I stated earlier, because if an owner is intent upon destroying that particular historical building, then what happens is after the 270 days the municipality has the option of either expropriating the land or else the bulldozer comes in.

There is still nothing in this present act or in the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, to protect a particular building which the local community or the province, through the Ontario Heritage Foundation, considers to be important to the heritage of this province. There is nothing that can be done about it. There is no clause in the legislation to protect that building.

The second principle is that finally, five years after 1974, we have the amendment. I understand at that particular time the province was under the impression the municipality had the power to enter into easements or covenants with owners of heritage buildings. It took the Minister of Culture and Recreation five years to bring these amendments, when in 1975 and 1976 municipalities were already telling the minister and the ministry they legally did not have that power. Five years later, we have the amendment. Thank you very much. It could have been five years from now, so let’s thank our lucky stars.

What this particular section does is give the municipality the power to enter into an easement, but at the same time, it unloads on to the municipality the financial burden of paying the cost of that particular easement.

The previous speaker made mention of the fact that an owner, if he has a heritage property, wants some kind of incentive. Why should an owner, after all, maintain a particular property, whether it is heritage or not, if the land upon which the building is situated can cost a tremendous amount of money and an apartment building can be erected on that site? Why should an owner maintain it as a heritage property?

Therefore, what the heritage foundation has done in the past is it has provided incentives. Ten to 15 per cent of the value of the property has been mentioned. I understand there is another incentive which could be provided but it hasn’t been used up to this particular time, and that is to give the owner an income tax incentive, that is from the time the easement is signed with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, for all intents and purposes, that particular property and land is frozen.

So in essence, what can be done is to say if the building and the land costs this much today, we will give you as an income tax deduction the difference between the value, the cost of the land to the building now and the time of entering into an easement with the property.

Those two particular tools can be used. As I said, the former has been used more readily by the Ontario Heritage Foundation and the latter has not yet been used, but perhaps will.

I want him to think of a municipality that does not have a property tax base. I am in agreement with this bill and we will support it. But as a result of this change of legislation, the responsibility now is going to be on that municipality to preserve that local heritage building.

In other words, the local autonomy issue is a double-edged knife. On one hand it would be good for the municipality to have the power to decide what to do with that particular land. On the other hand that power costs money, at least in terms of the 10 or 15 per cent it would have to give to an owner to entice him to enter into an agreement. What if the municipality does not have the flexibility the provincial government has? What happens to that heritage property?

I suspect the municipality, if they cannot enter into an easement agreement with the owner, can designate the property. But as we suggested earlier, after 270 days, the game is over. What I want is some assurance here tonight that the Ontario Heritage Foundation and the provincial government, where a municipality cannot afford to provide incentives to an owner to enter into an easement agreement, will go some way to provide financial assistance to that municipality.

As far as I am concerned, that is the only drawback in this legislation. On paper it looks good, but when a municipality attempts to apply it, it is not so good. It might find the funds are not there to provide the incentives to the property owners. Then unless the government or the Ontario Heritage Foundation steps in with some money -- some formula should be devised as far as I’m concerned -- that property even though it has tremendous significance to the local municipality, will fall to the bulldozer. The bulldozer will wipe it off of the map.

I know some of the people on the board of governors of the Ontario Heritage Foundation and those people definitely would never allow anything like that to take place. They really have at heart the preservation of the heritage of this province. However, I would not want the government to get out of the picture by saying to the municipality: “you have the legislation, you have the local autonomy, you deal with your problem. And if we’re going to come some way to help you with the problem, it is a favour we are doing your municipality.”

I would not want the government to take that attitude at all, because I don’t think the government does anybody a favour in protecting the heritage of this province. As far as I am concerned, the responsibility lies with the provincial government to protect that heritage.

Even though I appreciate the local autonomy issue, nonetheless, there are many things in the field of culture and recreation that are a responsibility of the government of Ontario for the protection and preservation of the heritage of this province and, frankly, for the encouragement of the arts in this province. The government would not give that power to the local municipalities to encourage the arts, would it? We will not get the Ontario Arts Council in each municipality in this province. As I have said, I agree with the legislation. But I have some doubts. I hope the member for Armourdale will put some of those doubts to rest. Even if he does not, I believe this legislation is important enough that it should go through. But I am sure the member and the Minister of Culture and Recreation both know that they will hear from me in a year or a year and a half from now; they can rest assured of that.

I think I have mentioned everything in terms of this legislation except one thing; that is, the property owner which has been the most consistent destroyer of the heritage of this province is the government of Ontario itself, through the Ministry of Government Services. The Ministry of Government Services has some responsibility for all the buildings owned by the government of this province, and the record of that ministry in protecting the heritage of this province has been, to say the least, dismal -- at least, in the last two episodes in which I have had some involvement it has been dismal. I am glad the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is here, because he was the one who said the building has got to go.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Don Jail, yes. You’re a resident of the Don Jail? I can see why you would be unhappy. And it will come down, my friend -- right into rubble.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the heritage of this province; I am not talking about the emotionalism of the moment that could be garnered in one’s favour.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You’d preserve an old jail?

Mr. Grande: However, let us leave the minister to rest where he is. He is capable of creating other problems and doing other things that will not sit well with this province.

Let me say that two years ago the Minister of Culture and Recreation at that time, the member for --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Brock.

Mr. Grande: Brock.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Deputy Premier.

Mr. Grande: Yes, indeed. Two years ago, the minister made a commitment during consideration of those estimates that an inventory of all the buildings owned by the province of Ontario was going to be made. This particular list was going to be made public so that a municipality would not have to go the route of designation and feasibility studies, and the Ontario Heritage Foundation would not have to order a feasibility study and spend thousands of dollars before the minister of the day decided that a building should not be protected, even though the recommendation from both of these bodies was that it should be protected.

I would urge the Minister of Culture and Recreation to come through with that inventory, to come through with that list, so that we know which buildings the Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Culture and Recreation and, indeed, the government considers to be important to the heritage of the province.

The other point, of course, is that the province, through the Minister of Culture and Recreation, should also be talking to the federal government, because some of the federal buildings should be kept since they are part of the heritage of this province. As of now, I understand that no such agreement has been reached. As a matter of fact, I do not know to what extent any talks are going on.

[8:45]

Let me sum up by saying that this legislation is obviously better than what was in the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974. It has been in the making for five years; it is finally here. This party is glad to support it, but I would like some comment from the government in terms of the assurances to the municipalities that, if they do not have the finances with which to enter into an easement agreement, the province or the Ontario Heritage Foundation will go a long way to satisfy that need.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to Bill 71, the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act. The purpose of the bill is to allow municipalities to make easement agreements with property owners for the purpose of protecting buildings of local historical interest. The Ontario Heritage Foundation will still act to protect structures of regional or provincial interest and will be empowered to make easement agreements when necessary.

As previous members mentioned, this perhaps narrows it down a little too much, such that the interest of the province will be in such things as regional matters and provincial interests -- one can think of historic regional buildings such as the old county courthouses, and perhaps regional jails and buildings of that nature -- but nothing that actually relates to the jurisdiction that will fall upon municipalities under the amendments to this particular act.

Also, the bill is meant to improve the present situation, where municipalities do not have any authority to protect a historic property after the 270-day official designation period. The 270-day period is useful as a stalling tactic against intermediate or indiscriminate alteration or demolition by owners. As well, the delay provides time in which the community can participate in the final decision.

I am not quite clear about what the explanatory notes mean when they say: “Section 1. Subsection 4 of section 22 is enacted to ensure that the provision of any easement agreement or covenant that is held by the Ontario Heritage Foundation with respect to a heritage building will prevail over the alteration and demolition provisions of part IV or the act where the building has also been designated by the council of a municipality pursuant to the provisions of part IV of the act.”

As a member of the procedural affairs committee, I think we run into some areas of concern in this particular area. I would like to read into the record portions of the Comay reports because there still seem to be conflicting jurisdictions in this particular area as it relates to the Ontario Heritage Act.

“Municipal councils can withhold demolition permits for designated buildings of architectural or historic significance for a period of 270 days under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Municipalities also have a right under the Planning Act to withhold demolition permits for any residential buildings until the owner has secured a new building permit for the property. The question has been raised whether the demolition control provisions of the Planning Act should apply to designated historic buildings as well.”

It goes on to say:

“The two different kinds of controls are now being provided for two essentially different kinds of situations. The procedures for historic buildings are designed, at least in part, to give the municipality an opportunity to carry out negotiations with the owners so as to find a way of maintaining the building in an appropriate use while preserving its distinctive character. We have recommended specific changes that should assist municipalities for this purpose: improvements in the use of incentive zoning and holding bylaws (in chapter 11) and provision for the acquisition of development rights (in chapter 15).”

I suppose, under the section that deals with easements, what this actually does is give municipalities the right to control through easements. That is what it does. But that has always been under the act, where the Ontario Heritage Foundation had that power and authority to deal with it too. This does away with the mind boggle of the old common-law easement; I think that is the intent of the section.

To continue with the Comay report: “Demolition control for residential structures is designed mainly to forestall the premature destruction of residential housing stock. Provisions of the act do not allow municipalities to prevent demolition indefinitely, but only as long as the owner cannot make another legal use of the property.

“As soon as he is able to secure a building permit, a demolition permit must be granted.”

The final paragraph reads: “The problem with historic or architecturally significant buildings is that in many cases the owner can in fact make another legal use of the property if the Planning Act provisions were applied.” That is still going to be applied, if the owner wants to do it, if you don’t obtain an easement.

“Municipalities would in many cases lose the valuable protection afforded by the 270-day provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, since demolition would be legally possible. We believe that on balance it is more important that municipalities have the assured benefit of the 270-day waiting period, plus the availability of special zoning provisions and development rights acquisition that we have proposed, than simply the security of being able to withhold a demolition permit until a building permit has been secured.”

The report goes on to say, “We are, therefore, unable to recommend that the demolition control provisions of the Planning Act be applied to designated historic or architecturally significant buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act.”

That still leaves a question in my mind as to whether this bill will provide safety measures -- that council will have the authority to preserve historic buildings. This easement isn’t going to provide that. If you don’t get the easements, the agreement is not going to be there. It has to be agreed upon. I would like to get clarification on that; it just does not provide the controls a municipality must have if it is going to have some control over historic buildings.

I believe that under the act the Ontario Heritage Foundation does have control, but once this passes on to local governments, and we talk about local autonomy, I think this may cause some problems with additional legal costs. Perhaps the minister should be taking a close look at this.

The other matter I am concerned about is the phrase in section 2 of the bill, “local advisory committee, where one is established.” I suppose it shouldn’t be a matter of “where one is established,” but “shall be established.” I don’t think municipal councils have enough time today to deal with the preservation of historic buildings in their communities; I think their work load now is rather heavy. To add more to it might cause some oversight and an important historic building might be demolished. I suggest that is an area that should be looked at.

I don’t think we should lose sight also of the fact that there are about four different agencies involved in this bill and that should be mentioned. There is the federal government’s Heritage Canada; there is the Parks Canada assistance; at the provincial level there is the Ontario Heritage Foundation; then there is the municipal level; and, finally, we have the private sector. All are involved in this area. In view of this, I should think it almost compulsory that a local advisory committee be established.

These are some of the points I am concerned about in this bill. As my colleague has said, we support this bill in principle, but I am afraid it doesn’t go quite far enough to provide protection for some of these historic buildings or sites.

This year the Niagara Peninsula, and particularly the city of Port Colborne, are celebrating the 105th anniversary of the building of the Welland Canal. There are some historic sites located in Port Colborne which relate to the second and third canals. Parts of the old locks are still there, as well as the control weir. These should, perhaps, be preserved for generations to come, as examples of what was quite an engineering feat for the time. There’s the old feeder canal that was part of the original Welland Canal that is located in Moulton-Sherbrooke township -- the town of Dunnville now -- and Wainfleet township. It’s of a rather historic nature and it’s a beautiful little waterway that should be preserved for generations to come. For some unknown reason, we’ve let this slip. I hope this year, with the celebrating of this great event, consideration by the Ontario Heritage Foundation and other government agencies and even the private sector which is involved at the present time, they will get all the help they need to preserve this waterway.

I am still not quite clear as to the intent of the bill. As I understand it, there is legislation there now and all this does is just remove it from the authority and jurisdiction of the Ontario Heritage Foundation and give it to local municipalities. I’m afraid there may be additional costs involved there and perhaps some of the grant money can be passed on to the municipalities that want to be involved in this program.

I think it’s a good program and I do support it.

Mr. Lawlor: Just two points, Mr. Speaker. First, in general terms, the Ontario Heritage Foundation can be -- and I warned the government with respect to this point; I have never done it before in the Legislature -- subject to very great abuse. The tax concessions with respect to the turning over of so-called antiques, artefactums of various kinds, at an inflated value is a trick of the rich to escape the responsibility. Those who do the assessing aren’t particularly meticulous about what figures they use. In order to acquire the property in the name of the province, whatever it might be, they are rather indulgent towards the price placed by the owner, the entrepreneur, whoever he might be. It’s the rich who do this in any event, and in order to escape the tax consequences, they value the thing very high. Some day an investigation is going to have to be made of that whole business because I’ve had some reference to this kind of manipulation going on.

The other thing is a pure legal point, Of course, on all legal points in this House I address the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams). How can there be an easement without either a dominant or a servient tenement? These things all go together and it’s part of English law. Maybe he could correct me on it, maybe I’m wrong. At the very best he’s talking about a covenant but all the way through and on the documentation he has given out on this, it is constantly referred to as an easement.

In other words, the front wall, the façade, of the building has some historic interest, et cetera, and you acquire some kind of rights over it. That right, I put it to you, is not an easement by any designation known to English common law or otherwise. Why do they designate it as such? The government owns no other property in the vicinity and in order to acquire an easement, you have to own the property immediately adjacent thereto.

I rather suspect that on that basis someone could attack, at a subsequent date, many of the agreements they are drawing up as being maldesignated, as not having the force and effect, and certainly not the terminological designation they have made of it, and possibly invalidate the whole principle.

I don’t want to speak at any great length on the matter. I just bring those two points to their attention and leave them alone.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Is there any other member wishing to speak to this bill? If not, the parliamentary assistant in reply.

Mr. McCaffrey: First I would like to ask you for some advice. Is this called the committee of the whole House or where are we?

Mr. Acting Speaker: No, not yet.

Mr. McCaffrey: At what point is it and who decides?

Mr. Acting Speaker: I am sorry, at what point do we do what?

Mr. McCaffrey: When do we go into the committee of the whole House?

[9:00]

Mr. Acting Speaker: After your reply we will see whether it passes second reading or not. I’m asking you to make some reply.

Mr. McCaffrey: Terrific. I’m just wrestling with the member for Lakeshore’s 17th century definition of an easement. In the meantime I wanted to find out just exactly where we were.

Let me work backwards and try to answer a couple of the questions --

Mr. Lawlor: It sounds very good. You’re probably more at home working backwards.

Mr. McCaffrey: -- raised by the member for Oakwood and the soak-the-rich member for Lakeshore.

The member for Erie specifically asked about the intent of the bill and it’s worth touching on. It also alludes to some of the comments raised by the member for Oakwood. “Easements,” in the definition used by those in the Ontario Heritage Foundation since 1974, at least, have in 24 instances been used to have some rights over certain buildings in the province to preserve them for historical, architectural purposes, et cetera.

Mr. Lawlor: Your taste is very bad.

Mr. McCaffrey: The intent of the bill was to give municipalities the same opportunity to write easements to enter into those kinds of agreements. I think it’s fundamental to point out that these are voluntary contracts entered into by the owner or owners of a particular building and, in this instance, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, and subsequent to the passage of this amendment, the municipality. That clearly is the intent of the bill -- to give what has been since 1974 a useful and important tool used by the foundation to the municipalities as well.

The member for Oakwood -- and I can understand this -- wants some assurance from other than the good people who make up the board of directors of the Ontario Heritage Foundation that this is not really some kind of a device to thrust additional costs on the municipalities -- if that’s a fair interpretation. I asked that question myself.

Let me just backtrack and try to answer two things at the same time. My understanding is that in the half a dozen or so matters which prompted this amendment, where municipalities want to enter into their own easement agreements with owners, in every instance the money involved has already been promised by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. One specific one is the property, 187 King Street East, in Toronto. The foundation has already offered a $25,000 grant.

The municipality, in particular the legal department of the city of Toronto, did request, I think in 1978, that the act be amended in order that they could enter into this agreement.

I don’t see in that instance, and in the half a dozen I have in front of me, that it’s a question of the local municipality having to put up any additional money or any money at all. It’s still money coming from the Ontario Heritage Foundation. But they will be able to enter into the agreement.

Mr. Grande: Are you sure about that?

Mr. McCaffrey: I’m sure that’s so for the ones I have in front of me.

Let’s just jump ahead. Following the passage of this amendment might there be an instance where the municipality, which can now write its own agreement, has to come up with what seems to be a useful yardstick -- the 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the market value of that particular building? Will the Ontario Heritage Foundation -- I ask myself this -- turn a deaf ear to that municipality’s request for financial help? I doubt it.

Mr. Grande: This government has always turned a deaf ear to the municipalities.

Mr. McCaffrey: I doubt it, because of the 24 properties held already by the foundation, those easement agreements already held, who was the initiator of it? It was a combination of people and various historical boards in the municipalities and representatives on the foundation board of directors who together wanted to preserve some of these specific properties.

Mr. Grande: Do you know how this government treats school boards and municipalities?

Mr. McCaffrey: There is 36 years of faith standing here in front of you. You want more assurances than the past 36 years? Trust me.

Mr. Lawlor: Thirty-six years of disillusionment.

Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Oakwood also raised an important question regarding the clarification of what appeared to be two parallel contracts; the local designation which the municipalities enter into when they designate a building and the municipalities’ passage of this new ability to write their own easement.

You probably have the existing act there, Mr. Speaker. May I read one part of it? On page nine, section 29(4)(b) subsection 4 says: “Notice of intention to designate under section 1 shall contain ...” and subsection (b) says “a statement of the reason for the proposed designation ...” As I perceive the municipal easement agreement, it will look not unlike that example we’ve got. The reasons for the easement agreement will be as specific as, likely more specific than, any reasons for the designation they would have to itemize.

That was not the member’s point?

Mr. Grande: No, it’s exactly the same thing except that the easement continues for a long time.

Mr. McCaffrey: The fact that the designation has a termination time of 270 days is perceived by me at least as being a potential weakness. The easement agreement is stronger. The second part of the amendment we’re adding is that when the two are in place, one has to prevail and that the municipal easement agreement should prevail over any existing designation. That’s no problem.

Mr. Grande: I think you’re a bit confused but that’s okay.

Mr. McCaffrey: Does the member want to ask the question again?

Mr. Grande: Maybe.

Mr. Acting Speaker: It might be more proper if that discussion went on when you’re looking at the particular section in committee.

Mr. McCaffrey: I don’t think there is anything terribly specific to which I wanted to respond. The original speaker, the member for Kitchener, asked the question about inventory. Is there now such an inventory of government buildings, including this? The member for Oakwood asked about federal government buildings and what is being done now. My understanding is that such an inventory is now being prepared, I assume by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. I don’t know what state it’s in, quite frankly, but my understanding is that such an inventory of buildings of that type is now being prepared.

Mr. Grande: It will take five years to hatch this.

Mr. McCaffrey: I don’t think it’s a question of five years. A very specific request came to the minister in 1978 from the legal people in the city of Toronto. Up until that time, there had been an understanding within the Ministry of Culture and Recreation that municipalities could enter into those kinds of agreements. Those municipalities and Toronto was the first illustration, felt the present act did not permit it. The amendment was drafted in a more recent time period and we’re all supportive of that. I don’t have anything further to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: You sure put a bland face on the matter.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ LANDS ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 93, An Ad to provide for the holding of Land by Religious Organizations.

Mr. Lawlor: Shades of Henry VIII.

Mr. McCaffrey: Now the sinister part.

Mr. Sterling: In response to an Ontario Law Reform Commission report on mortmain, charitable uses and religious institutions, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has introduced Bills 93 and 94 to update this very old legislation to take into account modern-day needs. It is important in several minor ways to take care of various problems that have existed in the holding and transferring of organizations that were not formerly covered by the former act.

In addition, this bill extends a convenience that was formerly enjoyed only by Christian and Jewish religions to several other recognizable religions which have now been recognized in Ontario as being of much consequence. It also expands the meaning of the religious organization in a general way to many other religious organizations which are not specifically mentioned in the bill.

It is in effect a housekeeping bill. I say that with some reluctance because sometimes that raises more suspicions than anything else, but in fact it is.

Mr. Warner: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to be called upon to speak on this particular bill rather suddenly. However, the explanation that has been given by the parliamentary assistant is an interesting one. I suppose the House could debate for some time the reason one bill deals with religious organizations and the next bill deals with the Anglican church. I would have thought the House had come to some conclusion, as a result, that the Anglican church isn’t a religious organization. Being a Lutheran, I am well aware of the old saw that says one is either a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran or belongs to one of the sects. In this case presumably the Anglicans, unfortunately, are beyond the pale, at least so far as this bill is concerned.

In all seriousness, the parliamentary assistant has clearly set out the fact that there are now a variety of other religious groups beyond the traditional Christian and Jewish congregations within the province. They have come and developed within Ontario as a further development of the multicultural mosaic which we have in Ontario and in Canada.

It is important that these groups with different means of guidance and leadership within their own organizations have the opportunity to acquire property and attend to the things the law imposes and requires in a proper and consistent manner. In the ordinary congregation, with which most of us are familiar, a church board or the operation of the ownership residing in an episcopalian corporation or in a bishop is the traditional thing to which most of us are used. But these are circumstances that now require changes.

I welcome the explanation which the parliamentary assistant has given. I don’t know whether it is his intention to have this bill go to committee if there are any particulars which he wishes to further discuss. I will certainly accept his comments with respect to the support given by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I hope the bill, as introduced, will resolve the concerns of other groups so that they can hold title to properties in accordance with their needs in a proper and consistent manner.

[9:15]

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. I know the Speaker is aware that this bill emanates from a long series of similar acts of the Legislature in Ontario and, prior to that, in England.

I think, as a starting point, we should refresh our memory of the comments made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report of 1976 when it stated that the research for this reference, meaning the need for reform, has demonstrated that many of the laws in these areas have accumulated over the centuries, some of them dating back to feudal times and beyond, and have contributed to what once was described with reference to land law generally as “a rubbish heap which no one except professors in law schools understands” -- rather, with the implication that even the professors do not thoroughly understand them or all understand them the same way.

That’s the place where we’re beginning, along with the comment of the law reform commission that there was a need for some reform and this bill is one small part of the reform which the Law Reform Commission was talking about.

Mr. Lawlor: That gave Allan Leal a chance to confess his own ignorance.

Mr. Warner: The roots of this bill go back and some would trace it, as my colleague Mr. Sterling perhaps would remark, prior to Christ. I don’t know whether he has traced it back that far, but I have traced it back to at least Henry I and to 1100.

Mr. Samis: I thought he traced it back to Don Irvine.

Mr. Warner: Certainly what is interesting to me is that even in 1100 A.D. it’s noted that the records of the city of London, England, “comprise of charters granted by the kings as far back as the time of Henry I conceding to the citizens the right to have actions for lands decided according to their own laws.” Then, of course, later on there was the charter of King John, which the chair would be familiar with, and later charters that stated precisely that the privilege be extended to lands within the city of London, England.

Of course from there, from 1100 and later, the charter of King John, we find that the Great Charter -- that being the Magna Carta, in 1215 -- talks in several parts about the city of London, because that’s the place where the rights were first developed. Section 9 of the charter says: “Let the city of London have all its ancient liberties and customs.” Of course one of the customs was that land could be set aside, apart from the fiefdom aspect of land, and could be held, in some cases for religious purposes.

Beyond that we find references in sections 32 and 36 of the Great Charter. Section 32 forbids “any freeman to alienate so much of his land as will render the residue insufficient to secure the services due to the lord.” Section 36 forbids a dodge whereby a tenant gave land to a religious house and thereby got it discharged from all services and then received it back again. What happened, of course, was that the development of both mortmain and charitable uses reflected a concern that the church was abusing the privilege of having lands and how it would dispose of those lands. If I understand the history correctly, that’s how the Charitable Uses Act developed.

Beyond 1215, of course, there was a refinement in 1225 of the Great Charter and then, in 1279, what is called the mortmain de religioses.

Mr. Samis: Let’s hear it for them!

Mr. Warner: Which again -- and you must be patient here for a moment; how could I lose that reference? Okay; that was 1279. In 1392 there was the Mortmain Act; followed in 1535 by the Statute of Uses; and in 1601 by the Charitable Uses Act.

Of course that legislation, which is commonly known as the statute of Elizabeth I, is really what I would think is a turning point in that it sets out some criteria for charitable uses. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, as you realize, that the preamble to that statute provided the basis, and if I understand it properly still provides the basis, for this act tonight. That preamble reads:

“ ... the Relief of the aged, impotent and poor People, some for Maintenance of sick and maimed Soldiers and Mariners, Schools of Learning, Free Schools and Scholars of Universities, some for Repair of Bridges, Ports, Havens, Causeways, Churches, Sea-Banks and Highways, some for Education and Preferment of Orphans, some for or towards Relief, Stock or Maintenance of Houses of Correction, some for Marriages of poor Maids, some for supportation, Aid and Help with young Tradesmen, Handicraftsmen and Persons decayed, others for the Relief or Redemption of Prisoners or Captives and the Aid or Ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of Fifteens setting out of soldiers and other taxes....”

That provided the basis for the further developments which result in our having this bill today. I am sure the Attorney General is well aware he is simply following the line of what had been set out by Elizabeth I.

What is interesting is that it did not provide for the courts the opportunity to be definitive about the churches, because in the statute of Elizabeth I they talked about the maintenance of churches. It was restrictive. Much later on, in 1805, Sir Samuel Romilly had to develop what he called the four heads of charity. That was later altered by Lord McNaughton. His classification is very interesting because he still has four, but he talks about the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.

I want to zero in on the advancement of religion. He makes the distinction, because the advancement of religion is a more encompassing term than what had come prior to that. It is interesting to note that beyond that interpretation of the court was that the advancement of religion is a very broad term. Hang on just a second here.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is great for those who haven’t been to law school.

Mr. Acting Speaker: While the honourable member is looking for that reference, I might draw the House’s attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of a former minister of the crown, his wife, and I presume his grandson. They are here on this occasion to see this religious bill going through tonight. I refer, of course, to Allan Grossman.

Applause.

Mr. Warner: The argument that is put forward is that the court cannot place one religion above any other. That decision is a breakthrough in terms of religious freedoms. “Purposes conducive to the advancement of religion” is one of the terms that is used.

“The law of England has always shown favour to gifts for religious purposes. It does not now, in this matter, prefer one religion to another. It assumes that it is good for man to have and practise a religion. But where a particular belief is accepted by one religion and rejected by another, the law can neither accept nor reject it. The law must accept the position that it is right that different religions should each be supported, irrespective of whether or not all its beliefs are true. A religion can be regarded as beneficial without it being necessary to assume that all its beliefs are true, and a religious service can be regarded as beneficial to all those who attend it without it being necessary to determine the spiritual efficacy of that service or to accept any particular belief about it.”

As I mentioned, that decision, which was in the Gilmore versus Coates case, provides a basis for some of the religious freedoms that we have. That brings me to one of the questions I hope the parliamentary assistant can respond to, because in his definition section of the bill the broadest term used is “Christian.” I would want to know whether or not that includes the Church of Scientology. They are not specifically named in the bill. I think that what the bill does, if I understand the principle of the bill, is perhaps test some of our principles of tolerance of religious diversity. Does the bill assure the Church of Scientology, for example, that it is included in the definition in section 1 of the bill? That is one question I wanted to pose.

We could move on from 1805 to 1888, which again is a landmark in the development, with the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act setting out another refinement in the process. What I wanted to set out for the parliamentary assistant was the fact that there are various stages through the development, including 1888 and 1891; but not until 1960, with the Charities Accounting Act, did we revamp it again. Then the Ontario Law Reform Commission report brought it completely up to date.

[9:30]

All of this provides a basis for religious institutions to hold land, to retain some clear identity and to be able to dispose of the lands as they see fit. What’s interesting, as I read it, is that there is a contradiction between what Bill 93 provides and what the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act says. That’s supported in the law reform commission report. There is an interesting section in the report about the holding of land by people other than Canadians. On page 14 under foreign ownership of land, it sets out that there are rules for the foreign ownership of land. They seem to be fairly clear in theory, namely that the holding of religious lands cannot be attained by people who are not resident in Ontario or in Canada.

I understand that, but there is no such connection in Bill 93. In fact part of the bill says that the trustees can determine to sell the land or to lease it for 40 years by a vote of the trustees. My assumption would be that if they decide to dispose of the land or to lease it, as guaranteed under Bill 93, they would automatically be subject to the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, which precludes foreign ownership except under special provisions, that is either by licensing or by special provision granted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That’s outlined in the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

I’m making that assumption without any guarantee in this bill, and that’s what I’m concerned about. In other words, does the bill provide an opportunity and is the Attorney General opening up inadvertently a loophole whereby -- obviously not the major religions, or we think not the major religions -- some of the minor or smaller sects or groups are able by a circuitous route to acquire lands in Ontario held in trust and leased out though those people who are the principals involved are not Canadian citizens and are not resident in Canada?

Secondly, the provision of the 40-year-lease opportunity seems to me to be not restricted to religious purposes but to allow the opportunity to develop commercial interests on lands which were originally set aside to be for religious purposes. I would stress that I’m unclear about those points. I am not saying the bill does provide the opportunity for that, I am simply not clear on it.

I have attempted to read the bill very thoroughly, the report of the law reform commission thoroughly and all of the history on the matter back to Henry I in 1100 as clearly and understandably as I can.

It seems to me the bill may inadvertently provide an opportunity which I don’t think any of us want, that is to allow the holding of land by people who are not resident in Ontario nor Canadian citizens. Secondly, when the land ceases to be used for religious purposes it can then be leased for commercial purposes. I don’t think that’s the intent either.

I would wonder, then, if the minister might comment also upon the possibility of introducing an amendment which would stipulate that the trustees of any such holdings must be Canadian citizens; this would be based on a couple of things.

First of all, I cannot think of either a major or a minor religion which does not involve Canadians. Secondly, the requirements for Canadian citizenship in terms of years is reduced to three; so surely, if we are looking at trustees who are going to be charged with the responsibility of religious holdings, it would be reasonable to expect that those people would be Canadian citizens. Perhaps that is one way of helping to guarantee that the lands will be retained in Canadian hands and that they will be used only for religious purposes and not leased out for commercial purposes.

At this juncture, and realizing that all of us who are concerned with the legislation -- including the many members who are glued to the squawk boxes outside the chamber -- understand that we have here one small step in a chain that goes back to 1100 and emanates from the Great Charter, among other things, which indeed makes it an important piece of legislation, and not wanting us to make any mistakes on it, perhaps we can spend the next few moments going over some of the remarks I have made and make sure we are not going to make any mistakes before 10:30.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for the outline of the background and history of the evolution of the bill that is before us this evening. I therefore want to comment on only three or four matters which I believe merit comment.

First of all, I want to underline very clearly two of the requests my colleague made to the parliamentary assistant. The first is that it does appear to us to be essential that the act provide that trustees be Canadian citizens. It seems to me that is not only consistent with questions relating to the ownership of land by charitable organizations, that they should be owned by trustees who are Canadian citizens; it is also consistent with the slow but sure evolution, at some point in time, of an adequate government policy with respect to the ownership of land in Ontario, and I think now is the time to make that provision with respect to Canadian citizenship.

Secondly, I reiterate what my colleague said about the fact that charitable institutions as such -- whether they are foreign or domestic is irrelevant -- are prohibited now by the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act from investing in land in Ontario for investment purposes. The point my colleague makes about the provision in this act which permits land to be used, when not being used for the specific religious purpose, for investment purposes by way of lease for terms up to 40 years seems to us to be a significant breach of that principle and one which we should not tolerate here.

We recognize, as well as anyone else does, that a religious institution no longer needing a piece of land would need a turnaround time in order to dispose of that property. But I do not think it should be provided that there should be a lease provision for 40 years and then, in theory, it could be reused again for religious purpose and defeat the purpose of the bill by permitting that religious institution to hold land in perpetuity and in intermittent periods of 40 years have the opportunity to use it for business investment. I think it is much better to require the disposition of that land within some particular stated and reasonable period of time than to grant that authority with respect to leasing.

Those are the two matters which I trust the government will give some thought to, as we will between now and the time the bill is considered in committee of the whole House, to see whether we can devise an adequate amendment which might have agreement of the government and my colleagues in the Liberal Party.

I want to welcome the act, Mr. Speaker. I suppose it’s trite to say it is somewhat overdue, but I know how welcome it is to many of the religious faiths in Metropolitan Toronto, and elsewhere in Ontario, particularly to those in the riding of Riverdale. Significant numbers of South Asian people in that riding have worked long and hard in association with the government to try and get this bill before us to extend its provisions to religious communities such as the Hindu community, those adhering to the Buddhist faith, those members of the Sikh community and others of those South Asian communities. In that sense the bill is most welcome and a very real restatement and reaffirmation in Ontario of a most interesting principle, both historically and fundamentally to the law of Ontario, which stands consolidated in 1897 but unrepealed.

In that respect, I’m indebted to the work which the Ontario law reform commission did on this bill. It is quite fascinating that the principle of equality of religions and the practice of religion in Ontario is an ancient part of the tradition. It is quite fascinating that that particular statute, last consolidated in 1897, still remains unrepealed but is not included in the revised statutes of Ontario; nevertheless, it is the law of Ontario.

At this point in time, I think it is worthwhile to quote the recital to that act and the enacting provision, which are both still in force:

“Whereas the recognition of legal equality among all religious denominations is an admitted principle of Colonial legislation, and whereas in the state and condition of this province to which such principle is peculiarly applicable it is desirable that the same should receive the sanction of direct legislative authority recognizing and declaring the same as a fundamental principle of the civil policy of the province, therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

“1. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference provided the same be not made an excuse for acts of licentiousness or a justification of practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the province is, by the constitution and laws of this province, assured to all Her Majesty’s subjects within the same.”

I was rather concerned when the parliamentary assistant indicated that perhaps this was simply a housekeeping bill. In fact, it is a modern reaffirmation of a fundamental principle of the constitution of this province with respect to religious freedom, an essential, basic and fundamental ingredient of the kind of society which we in Ontario, and all members of the House I’m sure, are anxious to preserve, enhance, develop and protect.

This bill, in a very real sense, reaffirms that particular aspect of religious freedom. I would hope that when the time comes, as it is coming very soon now -- and I’m glad that the legislative counsel of the assembly is here -- when the time comes to revise the statutes of Ontario for 1980, this particular provision of the revised statutes of 1897, which remains on the statutes of the province of Ontario but is not consolidated, would be brought into the statute books so that we could be seen to reaffirm positively, in the existing statute books to which reference is made by so many people, this particular and very fundamental principle.

[9:45]

I think it does not depart too far from the principle of the bill, to urge upon the government the importance of considering the other portions of the report of the Law Reform Commission of 1976 dealing with mortmain and charitable uses in religious institutions, because that report indicated very clearly the fundamental ingredients of the considerations that would have to be given with respect to the ownership of land in the province of Ontario, that we can no longer go along without a clear and definitive all-embracing policy with respect to the ownership of land by residents of Ontario and by non-residents of Ontario, whether they be from elsewhere in Canada or from other countries.

That particular report outlines the necessary framework in which the government could develop the kind of policy which the select committee of this assembly on economic and cultural nationalism touched upon clearly in their report, but which has been ignored so long by this government. I think it is worthwhile and appropriate that this report could be referred to in that context, as I have done very briefly.

I welcomed the bill in the terms that it is of such immense importance to so many people now in the province of Ontario that it is a fundamental step forward, as I know we all agree it is. It seems to provide an ongoing framework which would mean we will not have to amend it to include other organizations, because it provides for a method of establishing whether or not a religious organization will meet the tests which are set out in the statutes, even though it is not one of the religious organizations which is delineated in the inclusive part of the definition in the statute.

It is a good bill. I hope the parliamentary assistant will give consideration to the two specific concerns we have, particularly the concern that the provision in the bill relating to trustees should require that trustees of these religious institutions should be Canadian citizens.

Mr. Samis: I was so inspired by the history lesson given tonight by my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), that I thought I would make two very brief comments.

First, I welcome the bill, for a variety of reasons. I want to specifically commend the government in its outline of various religious groups to be recognized for including what I think is the only indigenous religion in the entire list, and that is the Longhouse Indian religion, a very important religion in the traditions of our particular part of the province.

I think the ultimate irony of this entire debate tonight is that the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) is the member piloting the bill through the Legislature, when one considers the traditions in history of the southern part of his riding and neighbouring Dundas, and what organization has been paramount in that riding since the inception of Upper Canada, I think it is a true indication of how Upper Canada has now progressed to the stage where we can recognize not just the second religious group but the multiplicity of religious groups. I commend the government for its initiative.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate. I would like to indicate it is true this bill indeed is founded on the principle of religious equality, and in fact it still is a bill which will give effect to that principle. First of all I’d like to say to the member for Kitchener. I was not aware that he was a member of the Lutheran faith, but I thought I might add that my great, great grandfather was the first Lutheran minister in Canada. Although I do not profess to that faith at this time, I thought that might be of interest to you.

Mr. Peterson: It’s not interesting to him at all; he founded the church.

Mr. Sterling: With regard to some of the points raised by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) in reference to other religions or smaller sects which are not specifically mentioned in this bill, the definition section outlines what in fact a religious organization is to be defined as. Later in the bill there are provisions whereby a religious organization or an organization professing to be a religious organization can go to county court or Supreme Court to determine if they do fall within the purview of that general definition. So that any particular sect can go to this bill to get recognition and there is a practical way for them to determine whether or not they do come under the provisions of this bill.

I would point out that this bill is really a method of holding land for religious organizations. Some religious organizations would rather hold it through incorporated companies and a lot of the various religions do it that way.

I also wanted to point out there’s basically a very large difference when you’re talking about the mortmain issue and you are talking about this particular act.

Mr. Peterson: He doesn’t understand what mortmain is; he read the word in a book today.

Mr. Sterling: The foreign ownership issue is a mortmain issue, it has nothing to do with this particular piece of legislation. The mortmain act requires a foreign corporation to buy a licence in order to either lease or hold land or buy land, or it can qualify through having an extraprovincial corporation licence if it comes under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. So, that particular legislation is designed to take care of the problem of foreign ownership.

Whether or not the trustees of the organization are Canadian citizens or not, quite frankly I look at that as being somewhat irrelevant in connection with this bill. For instance I cannot see the difference between a landed immigrant being one of the trustees and a Canadian citizen being one of the trustees. The land that is held by the trustees is held for a charitable purpose, and if the land is sold or leased the proceeds must be devoted to charitable purposes. Whoever the trustee is is not so important as to how the trust is held.

Mr. Renwick: It should be within the jurisdiction of the court.

Mr. Sterling: The other question that was brought up was the right of the religious organization to lease land for commercial purposes. I know within the communities that I represent, there are many churches that are leasing part of their building, for instance to day-care centres. They do that on a continuing basis. I don’t think that would fall under the purview of the section that it was for a religious purpose as such. When you think of commercial organizations, when you think of commercial uses, it’s difficult to delineate between a commercial and a non-commercial use. The restriction is when they acquire the land, hopefully, or practically, the use of that particular land must be in accordance with the wishes of the members of that particular religious organization, as outlined in section 6.

Now, the advantages of this particular act are not so all-encompassing that I can see anyone wanting to create a religious organization to avoid going through any particular matter. As I mentioned before, for a relatively minor amount of money they could incorporate and be right out of the purview of this act in totality.

At any rate, I would indicate to the member for Riverdale, too, that the old act which this replaces allowed a 21-year lease provision with a renewal period of 21 years, as outlined in the law reform and that was basically why the 40-year period was picked.

We intend to amend one section of the bill in committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 94, An Act respecting the Anglican Church of Canada.

Mr. Sterling: I would indicate to the member for Kitchener that I am not a member of the Anglican church, but at any rate, the idea of putting this in the form of a public bill is that historically the Anglican church had a public act going back into the 19th century. The law reform commission recommended that we proceed this way to implement this legislation, basically in order to save the church the cost of bringing in a private bill, as the other religions mostly do have their own special legislation. That is basically the reason for doing it by way of a public piece of legislation rather than a private bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Having dealt with religious organizations, it is now a pleasure to turn to the Anglican church as some group not otherwise included in the previous bill. Presumably a branch of the Christian faith, they are still worthy of having their own legislation and I suppose that is fine.

I am reminded of the story of an early pope who, in viewing some captured persons from Great Britain, was told that they were Angli -- they were from Great Britain. His response was, “Non Angli sed Angeli.” Because of their fair hair and blue eyes and the opinion that persons had of what angels should look like, he felt they were not Angles, but rather angels.

I presume if we update the Latin phrases, we are now dealing with what would be the response of the pope of the day; “Non Angeli sed Anglici.” In other words, not angels, but Anglicans.

The end result is that we have this legislation which reminds us, of course, of the strong traditions within the province. The Anglican church in Canada has been involved with the very fabric of the formation of our province. As we look back into the background of this legislation and we see references to the effect of legislation passed in the third year of the reign of Queen Victoria and in the involvement of the Church of England in Upper Canada, Which, of course, existed as a division of our nation from 1841 to 1867, we can see how the traditions of that church have been to hold title to property, particularly with an overview and involvement of the bishop in a diocese.

[10:00]

I note in the second section that the organization of ownership of that land continues the involvement of the congregation, but also the responsibility and authority of the bishop, which is the tradition of that church and which, of course, is just fine.

I think it is prudent to have this as a piece of public legislation now so that the statutes of the province will show an updating with respect to the entire series of ownerships of property within the province. I believe that bringing forward this bill is indeed a prudent thing and it certainly has our support.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, the New Democratic Party has supported the Anglican church in the past --

Mr. Peterson: Anglicans don’t vote for socialists.

Mr. Warner: -- does support the Anglican church today, will continue to support the Anglican church tomorrow --

Mr. Peterson: You support any left wing cause.

Mr. Warner: As the member for Kitchener mentioned to me earlier --

Mr. Peterson: You’ll hitch your wagon to any minority fringe group.

Mr. Warner: -- this bill is important. I certainly recall, as the member for London Centre recalls, the young Anglican priest who, at the time of his very first sermon, asked the bishop, “What shall I preach about?” The bishop gave him very wise advice: “You should preach about God in about 15 minutes.”

Mr. Peterson: Is this parliamentary humour?

Mr. Warner: It will take a while to sink in, I am sure.

We certainly support Bill 93. It is a companion bill to the one we previously discussed and it is certainly worthy of support.

Mr. Bradley: The member’s best speech yet.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make certain that the member for Kitchener understood the reason for a separate bill. The Anglican church in Canada stands ever poised and ready to be established as the established church here --

Mr. Breithaupt: We live in hope.

Mr Renwick: -- and we wouldn’t want to have to disentangle it from the other institutions of religious faith in order that that might happen. With the latter-day version of the Family Compact in power in Ontario, their hopes continue to exist that some day they will be so established.

Mr. Breithaupt: Shades of Bishop Strachan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s hear it for the Family Compact.

Mr. Renwick: I suppose the history of Ontario in religious equality is nowhere better mirrored by the fact that Egerton Ryerson started out life as an Anglican and ended up as a Nonconformist and John Strachan started out as a Nonconformist and ended up as an Anglican bishop.

As my colleague said, because of the long tradition of association of New Democratic Party members with such venerable institutions as Trinity College of the University of Toronto, we will support this particular bill.

Mr. Peterson: You can’t get in there if you’re a socialist, surely.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the members for their comments in relation to this particular act. As I said in my opening remarks, this bill provides special provisions so that the Anglican church can disentangle itself and make special rules in relation to its hierarchy as opposed to the general law that would be applicable to all.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS’ LAND ACT

Consideration of Bill 93, An Act to provide for the holding of Land by Religious Organizations.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, could we have the advantage of seeing the amendment which has been proposed by the ministry?

Mr. Warner: That is on section 11.

On section 1:

Mr. Warner: I listened carefully to what the parliamentary assistant said about the description of the religions. If he wouldn’t mind going back over that, I would appreciate it.

In section 1(1)(b) reference is made to “‘religious organization’ means an association of persons.” It then goes on in a subsequent paragraph to describe “Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, Baha’i, Longhouse Indian, Sikh, Unitarian or Zoroastrian faith, or a subdivision or denomination thereof.”

Am I to understand that description may include the Church of Scientology, for example, or some other similar type of smaller group, sect or faith? Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr. Sterling: Basically, the section is broken into two parts. In referring to the two words after section 1(1)(b)iii “and includes,” the general rule is before that. In other words, the court would look at that part; then the other part further delineates these other religions that are named.

Mr. Breithaupt: What you are saying is that if some group said they were Unitarian, for example, that of itself would be sufficient to avoid having to go through the particular subheadings of that definition. It would be simply accepted without further inquiry. Therefore, the section is not meant to be exclusive at all, but simply descriptive.

Mr. Sterling: That’s correct.

Mr. Renwick: I did want to point out to the parliamentary assistant what I believe he said earlier about the question of leasing property for an ancillary purpose such as a day-care centre or some such other operation. I think that indicated he missed the point my colleague had been trying to make. We recognize very clearly you can’t make that kind of a distinction. The bill specifically provides in section 1(2) that, “In interpreting subclause (i) of clause (b) of subsection 1, an organization does not cease to be charitable for the reason only that activities that are not charitable but are merely ancillary to a charitable purpose are carried on in conjunction with a charitable purpose.”

The point we have been trying to make, and which we will make at the appropriate time with respect to the 40-year lease provision, is that you can very clearly say whether land is being held for investment or is not being held for investment purposes. In that instance we can deal with the topic under those terms and not be diverted by the kind of distinction which I thought the parliamentary assistant was trying to make in reply to my colleague on second reading.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 1(2) and the interpretation that the member for Riverdale has given, is it not correct that in effect the Assessment Act is the tool which is used with respect to discovering whether property, no matter how it is owned, is to be used and therefore taxed?

Would not the provisions which he has referred to take care of the day-care centre or the other ancillary business operation under assessment and the decisions of the courts with respect to dormitories and residences and other matters that we have seen over the years?

I would have thought that would have been resolved in that the use of a property might bear certain taxes or other burdens, even though the title to the property would be attended to by this act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, my interpretation of section 1(2) is that it is specifically to provide that the religious organization can do acts like leasing its basement to a day-care centre, or a women’s association holding a wedding banquet and making some money from serving.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 3, and it would be subsection 7; so if there are comments prior to that, perhaps you would want me to wait to see if there are comments to subsections 1 to 6.

Mr. Breithaupt: May we have copies of the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Warner: I explored my concern with the parliamentary assistant and, having been assured that I am right, it was necessary to draft an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Warner moves that section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“7. A trustee shall be a Canadian citizen.”

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I first apologize for the short notice, but I wanted to --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am sorry that I have to raise a point of order on this particular issue, but we are to be given some notice of these amendments; we have not received any notice of this amendment and, therefore, I think the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order: I certainly understand the rules well. The rule says where possible there should be two hours’ notice. It is not mandatory.

Mr. Haggerty: The bill has been on the order paper for a couple of months.

Mr. Warner: Earlier, during the second reading, I attempted to explore my concerns, and they were confirmed. Had my concerns been allayed, I would not have entered the amendment. There is nothing out of order; there is nothing to preclude me from putting forward an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could have given him notice of the amendment and withdrawn it if you were concerned about it.

Mr. Warner: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick might wish to read the rules.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like this afternoon?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order: Before the acting House leader of the government party has an apoplectic fit over the question --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am very upset about it.

Mr. Renwick: -- we as always would co-operate. If the government wishes time to consider the amendment, we would be quite prepared to co-operate. If the acting House leader of the government party would move that the committee rise and report, we could always consider the matter at some future time rather than to get into, at this hour of the night, an excited debate over a technical question with respect to the application of a rule of the assembly.

[10:15]

Mr. Breithaupt: Speaking to the point of order: Surely we have had the circumstance very often in this House where amendments are brought forward, particularly from the government side, on bills that are before us, and copies wherever possible are given to the critics involved in the debate. However, surely other amendments, as we well know, come up from time to time in committee and are attended to. I would hope that this amendment, if it’s the wish of the member to bring it forward, can be discussed by the House without any particular strain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d be happy to co-operate.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my objection to the amendment.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, what I’d like to do is put forward my reasons for placing the amendment, and if the parliamentary assistant would like some time to reflect on the matter, I would be most pleased to have it stood over for a while.

My concern is that I believe that notwithstanding the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act which was passed in 1970 and amended in 1972, the bill we have does not preclude foreign ownership of lands that were originally set aside for religious purposes. It is of concern to me, as it was to the select committee of this Legislature looking at the foreign ownership of lands in Ontario, that we increasingly have a problem of our land being consumed by people who are resident outside Canada.

It would seem to me that since this bill directs itself to land being held by religious organizations, and the implication being that those are organizations here in Ontario, we would want to guarantee that the trustees of such organizations are in fact Canadians.

The requirement for Canadian citizenship has been reduced to three years. It is almost inconceivable to think that the trustees of a religious organization, if it’s a serious organization, would be people who are not Canadian citizens. Would they rise to such a position of trust and responsibility in less than three years? Would it not make sense that if the religious organization is important and substantial in our community, it would not be composed of people who are Canadian citizens?

I would argue that they would be, and that they are, they probably are. Then why not try to close the loophole which is evident, clearly evident now from the discussion we’ve had on second reading? Why not close that loophole at least part way? We will perhaps require an amendment later on, but let’s close the loophole part-way by saying that the trustee shall be a Canadian citizen.

In closing, if other members of the assembly, including the parliamentary assistant, like some time to reflect on this, I would be quite happy to have this section stood down and we could carry on with the remaining sections. I’m certainly not one to pressure things through, but I think it would be one of the small guarantees we could make in this House to help retain ownership of lands in Ontario by people who are resident of Ontario or, at least, Canadian citizens.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it’s a difficult subject to address, I think, in this amendment. I have brought forward, on a number of occasions, amendments to various statutes in order to require voting and a variety of other responsibilities to be the prerogative of Canadian citizens only. We won’t go into the meaningless phrase, “or other British subjects,” a phrase which doesn’t mean anything in law any longer. But I find this amendment a curious one because, to me, if trustees can be decided upon who are Canadian citizens, and the beneficial ownership within a congregation might be a group of landed immigrants who have not, as yet, achieved citizenship, then the fact of requiring Canadian citizenship for the trustees of that group doesn’t resolve the problem to which I think the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere seriously addresses himself -- that as soon as you use the word “trustees,” they are holding something in trust for themselves and others.

To make citizenship a sole requirement with respect to being a trustee in that case, does not to me resolve a problem of what could be, and clearly was referred to, as “foreign ownership.” Where we are dealing with a tract of industrial land, a recreational area around a lake or whatever it might be, the assessment rules as to use and taxation, as well as the other laws that involve themselves in ownership and use of property -- whether it be by zoning for the taxation framework -- are things which will be dealt with whether the trustees of a particular religious congregation happen to be Canadians or not.

So in first considering the amendment brought forward, I find my desire to have Canadian citizenship an important factor in voting for members of this Legislature, and indeed, the only factor as it’s long overdue, or for being involved as a bencher of the law society, or for example, as a member of the board of governors of a university, however it might be, is seemingly to me a more important theme than this item. I don’t see very much being resolved by this amendment, but I’d like to hear the parliamentary assistant’s views.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might make a comment because of the remarks of the member for Kitchener. I think he sees the failure to include “landed immigrant” in the definition amendment as an exclusionary provision with respect to some of the religious organizations who may wish to use the statute for the purpose of establishing their right to hold land.

In the consideration we gave this, with the present three-year provision of being in Canada as a landed immigrant before your eligibility for Canadian citizenship, we did not feel that with most of the communities -- and I’m thinking particularly of the South Asian communities in my riding; the Sikh community, for example and other such communities -- that would be a problem. Nor do I think it would be in any way seen as a restriction on anything related to their religious freedom or their right to hold land for religious purposes.

If, however, it were to be seen that way, because in voting we have never adhered rigidly to the principle of Canadian citizenship and have admitted British subjects, as the member knows, I would have no problems. I think the Canadian citizenship is the appropriate way to do it. I have no particular problems. Perhaps my colleague would have no particular problem if we were to amend it to include immigrants or Canadian citizens.

I think we were more concerned that the wording “Canadian citizens” was an easier way of dealing with the matter. We were very much concerned about foreign nationalists who were not landed immigrants or Canadian citizens being the trustees of land in Ontario being held for religious purposes in Ontario. It was that problem we were addressing. We do not think it is wise for the trusteeship of land in Ontario for religious organizations to be in the hands of persons who have no connection whatsoever with this country.

There is the problem of the jurisdiction of the courts over trustees as such. We recognize that in order to tidy it all up we would also have to say “resident in Ontario” to be within the jurisdiction of the court technically. Nevertheless, if they are landed immigrants or Canadian citizens and they are within Canada, the question of attorning to the jurisdiction of the court is not an insurmountable problem of service in the other jurisdictions across the country.

In the comments that are made, I would like to say to the parliamentary assistant that if my colleague is agreeable we would accept the subamendment or agree to amend that to provide that it read “a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant” if that would meet the problem about which we are concerned.

Mr. Sterling: Basically, I really don’t know the purpose of this exercise. The land is here, the books of the trustees are here and the court has jurisdiction over that property. The trustees are not the beneficial owners, as the member for Kitchener pointed out.

Mr. Warner: I missed that.

Mr. Sterling: They are not the beneficial owners of the property. The trustees are not the beneficial owners.

Mr. Renwick: They have the legal title to the property.

Mr. Sterling: They have the legal title to the property and they must act in accordance, under section 6, with the wishes of the religious organization that is there. If you are transferring title or accepting title from a religious organization, you should make certain that the religious organization has in fact approved by resolution what the trustees are doing.

I don’t know anywhere in our laws where we prevent foreign ownership. I may or may not disagree with that philosophically, but I don’t know any precedent for including it in this particular piece of legislation.

The other thing is, I do not see any reason to encumber the legislation with rules. We are going to be dealing with the idea of this particular piece, to simplify a process of law to let a congregation hold land by way of trusteeship rather than by incorporation. That is the idea of the piece of legislation. So what do we do? We start to put strictures on what a trustee must be. Must he be a Canadian citizen or must he be a landed immigrant, or whatever!

I don’t think it is fair to these organizations, first of all, to make the distinction between a landed immigrant and a Canadian citizen. They may very well appoint a trustee who is not a Canadian citizen. I object more strenuously to the amendment in terms of restricting it to Canadian citizens, because the group might very well, in error, appoint a trustee who is not a Canadian citizen. He may be the sole trustee and therefore where would all the conveyancing go in terms of that piece of land down the road?

Is that enough reason to attack the title to the property because a landed immigrant was the sole trustee who signed the particular conveyance? The protection is in section 6. That is a religious organization, they control the trustees.

[10:30]

Mr. Warner: What about section 10?

Mr. Sterling: Section 10 is controlled by section 6.

Mr. Warner: Such terms and conditions as they consider expedient.

Mr. Sterling: Section 6 says they can’t exercise any powers conferred upon them by this act until they are authorized to do so by resolution of the religious organization. So they have to take whatever mandate they get from the religious organization. I think we’re going very far. We’re trying to make the thing more complicated than it should be. We’re trying to simplify this thing for religious organizations.

Another matter that may be of interest is that I think when you’re dealing with religious organizations, as the member for Riverdale pointed out, we are talking about equality and we are talking about equality in religions. I don’t know whether that doesn’t transverse the nationalistic point of view; are we discriminating then against certain religious people because of the fact that they may have a trustee who is not a Canadian citizen? I don’t know, I just think we’re encumbering the act more than it needs to be. I just don’t see the necessity of this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Are there going to be further comments on this amendment?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.