Hansard Transcripts 1982-Apr-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Kennedy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to announce to the House that I received a copy of a proclamation by Metropolitan Toronto declaring today Arbour Day within the precincts of Metropolitan Toronto. I bring it to the attention of the House and urge members, particularly those from the Metro area, to support and if possible participate in this day to increase the awareness and recognition of the benefits from things that are green and that are so important to the environment and the welfare of our people.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, before we get to the questions of the leader, do you know if we can expect a statement from the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) this morning on the state of negotiations and perhaps the statistics relating to what is happening in the hospitals and in doctors' offices as a result of the disruption?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any statement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CALTRAV CORP.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday between 10 a.m. and noon the director of the consumer protection division froze the assets of the travel firms registered under the Travel Industry Act that were part of the corporate holdings of Caltrav Corp.

Last night at approximately 10 o'clock the registrations of Sunflight Vacations and Skylark Holidays were suspended. In the early hours of this morning, after a series of meetings that began at noon yesterday, shareholders of Caltrav and other interested parties agreed to a voluntary liquidation of Caltrav.

Lawyers for all parties, including our ministry, will be seeking an order of the court this morning approving the liquidation and appointing a liquidator for the companies. We are optimistic that this action will succeed and the liquidators will be in place today.

Meetings commenced late last night with representatives of the Association of Canadian Travel Associations to start the process of winding down the companies, the servicing of clients and dealings with various trade suppliers. The discussions resumed this morning and will continue throughout the day.

In order to give the fullest possible picture of these fast moving events and to bring everyone up to date simultaneously, Mr. Douglas Caven, the registrar under the Travel Industry Act, will hold a press conference in the ministry offices at 555 Yonge Street at 1 p.m., in the boardroom on the seventh floor.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

[Fault in sound system].

Mr. Foulds: That's his new bird call.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I'm a ventriloquist.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I move we adjourn until we find out what it was.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, federal Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan has announced that all provincial stabilization and income assurance assistance will be deducted from federal stabilization payments. I accept the federal minister's concern about different provincial stabilization levels. It has long been Ontario's position that there should be an adequate federal stabilization program for national commodities.

Provinces have been forced into stabilization programs because of the inadequacy of the federal program. In the speech from the throne we reiterated that Ontario was willing to participate in an effective long-term stabilization program for national commodities.

Having said that, I would point out that the same federal minister last year attempted to deduct provincial add-ons in a most discriminatory fashion. For example, in the case of pork, he was going to allow Quebec and British Columbia farmers to keep their add-ons. In other provinces, including Ontario, provincial payments were to be deducted from federal payments.

However, an even more important point is that we now have Mr. Whelan stating he is going to deduct provincial payments at a time when it is obvious to everyone that the federal stabilization program is totally inadequate. As I move throughout the province, this is the message I receive from farmers everywhere.

I want to emphasize, it is this very inadequacy which gave rise to provincial top loading. There is a certain irony in Mr. Whelan threatening the provinces at a time when the provinces and the farmers are anxiously waiting for him to come up with an adequate stabilization program.

Having met with Mr. Whelan, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that yesterday's announcement is the prelude to a new and better farm stabilization plan. In an effort to ensure this is the case, and to speed up help for our hard-pressed farming community, I have today contacted Mr. Whelan and my provincial colleagues to urge the federal government to convene a national meeting of agriculture ministers, the sole object of this meeting being to resolve this stabilization impasse as quickly as possible.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on April 23, 1982, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) rose to report that the director of one of the Windsor area's --

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Copies are being handed out to the members. I made sure the critic had it.

This involves the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and myself on her point of privilege. The rest are being distributed.

Mr. Boudria: It is not a statement. Okay.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I was directed by you yesterday to do it in a statement.

Mr. Bradley: Don't be combative, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I'm not.

Mr. Eakins: Be a gentleman.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What was that?

Mr. Bradley: We are trying to help you. You are being cranky about it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not. I made sure she had it.

On April 23, 1982, the member for Hamilton Centre rose to report that the director of one of the Windsor area's community residences had told her "... that he turns away 15 to 20 girls a year who are ... at risk of imminent danger, suicidal, capable of uncontrollable violence and dangerous to themselves or others. He also estimated that 20 girls ran away last year from his facility because it is not able to provide the supervision they need."

10:10 a.m.

On April 23, 1982, and subsequently on Monday, April 26, 1982, I tried to correct the member but to no avail. The facts are that my regional office staff obtained specific information from Maryvale, which I will share with the House this morning.

Maryvale reported that eight girls were referred there and not accepted in 1981. Of these eight juveniles, six were not from the Windsor area. One 15-year-old was listed as turned away when her parents refused to sign the admission documents. Maryvale's report indicated that eight girls ran away.

The information provided consisted of initials, not names, to protect the juveniles involved. The girl the member mentioned in the House on April 26, 1982, was not included on that list. However, there was a girl of the same age, same general behaviour problem and the identical initials, who was sent from Maryvale to the London Psychiatric Hospital. The girl the member mentioned did not go to the London Psychiatric Hospital but was --

Ms. Copps: Would the minister repeat that just so everyone is clear on the facts?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am very clear and will keep reading, because the member is not going to like the rest of it.

The girl the member mentioned on April 26 did not go to the London Psychiatric Hospital. She was sent to Twin Valleys School by the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society for the County of Essex in Windsor, into whose care she had been placed. This was after she had been apprehended by the police and placed in secure detention under the Child Welfare Act until disposition.

The court's disposition was that she be made a ward of the children's aid society for six months. This court disposition had the consent of the parents although, as of today, the father wants his daughter removed from this facility.

Some additional details of this case are that there was a family disagreement over the girl being compelled to enrol in a Catholic boarding school, so the family took her to a children's mental health centre, Maryvale, where she was admitted at their request on November 12, 1981; not February 1982 as has been claimed by her father. The province paid the bill.

The girl ran away six times in the next six weeks. She ran away three more times in 1982 and was finally apprehended by the children's aid society and the Windsor police on March 11, 1982.

On March 16, 1982, a show-cause hearing was held in family court at which time all in attendance, including the girl, her counsel, her parents, representatives from Maryvale and the children's aid society, agreed she should remain in the society's care. On March 31, 1982, with the agreement of her parents, she was sent to Twin Valleys School, a children's facility where, after an initial period of settling in, she is extremely happy.

These are the facts on this matter and I am grateful to have the opportunity to set the record straight once again and in an orderly fashion.

Ms. Copps: Frank, you look cute when you are apologetic.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not apologizing to the member for Hamilton-Centre for anything. She has been wrong since the very beginning. She was suckered and made a fool of and she is still there.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: There is no question about who won that one.

Ms. Copps: He doesn't even know what facility she is in. It is incredible. The minister is completely, monumentally misinformed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I am sure the minister is aware that Suncor has declared dividends of some 20 cents a share for this quarter while earnings for the same period were reported at two cents a share. Obviously the company is dipping into its equity in order to pay that dividend. Is it the minister's policy to strip the equity of that company in order to justify the ill-advised purchase he made some little while ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I assume the honourable member's reference is to the same company that was quick to send some $2,000 to him for the Peterson dinner. I am surprised he would question their judgement.

I am sure the member would understand that this is a private company. The board of directors of that company is making its own decisions on the basis of information it has in the confidence of the long-term optimistic future of this company, strengthened as it is by the investment of part ownership by the people of Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: Indeed it is the same company that had the wisdom to contribute to the party it will find as its employers after the next election. I admire these people. I should say employers for a day or two before we divest, but at the same time one has to give some credit to the management for respecting integrity and principle in politics.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Some small credit. I do not blame them. I blame those people over there.

I want to ask the minister about the dividend policy. That company had never declared a dividend for 62 years. As the minister knows, they took out a dividend of some $78 million the day before the deal closed. Now it appears that in order to justify the purchase, the government's policy is to take out more by way of dividends than the company is earning.

What does that do to the government's projections with respect to the viability of that project? What kind of economic return will that develop for the province over the next few years?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Surely references to the honourable leader and his party being the employer of this company after that particular date to which he has referred, which is very wishful thinking anyway on his part, would indicate that perhaps they are thinking in terms of the long-term advantages of this investment.

By virtue of his professional training, the member knows that the responsibility for the declaration of dividends remains with the board of directors. They have access to all sorts of information with respect to the vitality of this company.

The member knows that the repairs required as a result of the fire will be soon be completed, and the other activities in both exploration and indeed the expansion in the synthetic oil field, all of this information is relevant to any board as it makes decisions about its dividend policy. One has to have confidence in the board of directors, armed as it is with all that information, making such a decision.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the Ontario Energy Corp., as a major shareholder in that company, agrees with what appears to be the direction the board of directors wants to go with diversification and the Canadianization of the company so that the additional 26 per cent of the shares it hopes to Canadianize will be dispersed among a large number of individual or small investors?

Does he realize if that happens it will ensure that the benefits, the control and the dividends of that company will continue to flow to the United States instead of to here in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully and I have heard nothing that would alter the basic reason for the involvement of the government of Ontario; namely, to facilitate the Canadianization of the company, meeting all the criteria which that particular concept requires. That is what we are working to accomplish and, following the accomplishment of that, to be able to take advantage of the various incentive payments which would be available as a result.

Mr. Peterson: I want the minister to know that we had the foresight to cash the cheque to our party before the dividend was declared, just in case. I want to ask him, in his attempt to facilitate --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Have you sent it back yet?

Mr. Peterson: We will keep it. We are not proud, although I should tell the Premier we are not doing all that well with the car dealers at our dinner.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for a supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious that in the minister's plan to Canadianize that company he is running into very severe roadblocks. Brascan has rejected it, as well as a lot of other respectable energy and financial institutions in this country.

I would like to know (a) what progress is being made by the minister in his long-term plan to Canadianize that company, and (b) are there any other partners who are willing to invest in that company to assist in bringing over 50 per cent of it into Canadian hands?

10:20 a.m.

The latter part of my question is this: I was asking the minister originally about Ontario's investment, not the policy of the board of directors. How do these very low profits -- $1 million in the first quarter, down from $26 million or $27 million a year ago, down substantially from two years ago -- affect Ontario's view of the return on investment from the point of view of Ontario's participation?

Obviously the minister is losing a great deal of money on this purchase at the present time. When does he expect a recovery? When does he expect some sort of return to the taxpayers of Ontario to pay for that company?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can go to the latter part first. Number one, Ontario still sees its investment here as a good long-term energy investment. The member knows this very well.

He has to be fair, when he appraises this situation, and recognize the peculiar and unique situations in the immediate term with respect to the fire, with respect to the fact that the world price of synthetic oil just kicked in on the first of this year and with respect to a number of other issues that are not unique to Suncor but are being experienced by other companies doing similar business.

I assume on the basis of the first part of the question that the member would understand, I repeat, that dividend policy would be a decision made by the board of directors.

Third, a number of options are being explored with respect to completing the Canadianization process.

Mr. Peterson: It is no wonder that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) refuses to answer questions on this subject.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Peterson: May I ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture? I do not believe he has had a question with respect to the McMichael Canadian Collection, and I want to honour him with one.

The minister is aware that the gallery had planned to do a tour to some 11 museums in the midwestern United States; in fact, certain contracts have been let and plans have been made. Preparations were in a good state for a tour for that gallery of a number of states in the United States of, as I understand it, 45 of the major works in that particular exhibition.

Now this tour has been peremptorily cancelled by the director. Does the minister not feel that the reputation of McMichael is going to suffer even further with the unilateral cancellation of that tour? There are other people who want access to those paintings who have a lot less space than the McMichael gallery and the board.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, when we discussed third reading of the bill in here one evening last week the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) made the point that more tours should be done inside and outside the country. I think his expression was, "Why do we not have an 'art in a cart' exhibit?"

I subsequently did find out that beginning in May there are a number of tours of the McMichael gallery exhibits in our own province, in Kenora, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, etc. I was under the impression that tours outside this jurisdiction were also planned; the member says they have been cancelled. I am not aware of that, but I will check on it immediately.

Mr. Peterson: I will draw to the minister's attention some correspondence from Mr. Bell, the executive director of the collection, to the co-ordinator of the American tour. On February 18, 1982, Mr. Bell wrote, "I wish to assure you that the McMichael Canadian Collection will honour its commitment to you with regard to the proposed travelling exhibition you have been discussing with the previous director."

On April 8, 1982, Mr. Bell wrote: "There has been, if you don't know, a huge public outcry about the renovations and a debate and committee hearing in the Ontario Legislature surrounding the affairs of the collection and the fate of the McMichaels. Need I say more than we as an institution are under extreme public scrutiny.

"Under these circumstances it would be foolish to bait the public's possible criticism by shipping the highlights of the collection to the United States at the time and for the length of time you have proposed. There would be public criticism which I am not prepared to risk at this time."

Can the minister explain how he expects anyone to have confidence in the management of the collection when there is such an about-face of policy in such a short space of time?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I am not sure I can explain it. However, to the extent that the planned trips and exhibits within Ontario may have precluded trips outside the province for some of the exhibits, I will check into that. Whether it was an either/or situation, I do not know.

I do know that the trips from the McMichael gallery to the regions of Ontario I just mentioned from May to June of this year, some half dozen centres such as Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, etc., are on. I will check if that means they could not do both.

Mr. Peterson: As the minister will probably learn, these discussions have been going on for two years and, as I understand it, the tour was to involve only 45 paintings, not a major percentage of that collection. It looks to me as if there has been a major change in policy in that short space of time. Will the minister take these facts into consideration in his determination and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I will undertake to have an answer before the end of question period.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. The prodigious Canadian Bar Association study by Professor Murray Rankin has knocked down the house of cards of the minister's objections to freedom of information legislation.

I quote from the report, "It is our conclusion that, although certain minor amendments to Bill C-43 may be desirable, there is no compelling reason contained in the McMurtry letter to justify either abandoning this legislative initiative or further delaying this important reform."

Will the minister now withdraw his objections to the federal freedom of information legislation, and will he now release his Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling) from his obvious shackles and proceed immediately with freedom of information legislation here at the provincial level?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report to which the acting leader of the New Democratic Party refers. The course of the federal legislation is a matter for the federal cabinet. As I said the other day, I find it somewhat flattering that the Canadian Bar Association would suggest that the Attorney General of Ontario dictates to the federal government the course of its legislation. It is somewhat naive, to put it mildly.

What we suggested some time ago was uniform legislation, which I still think would be the proper course because the exchange of information between governments is obviously basic and of fundamental importance to effective government in this country. The exchange of information between law enforcement agencies in this country and elsewhere is of crucial importance in maintaining a reasonably effective level of law enforcement. From what I know of the report, this seems to be a fact that has escaped the good professor altogether.

Having heard the concerns of law enforcement agencies across this country over the past several years, we are concerned and we are looking for legislation that is not going to undermine the effectiveness of law enforcement in this country. We are concerned that critical information, exchanged on a day-to-day basis, will dry up. This is a concern of senior law enforcement officials across the country. This is simply a matter, among other things, that we suggested the federal government should consider.

This is an issue I know is of great interest to the Provincial Secretary for Justice of this province and we are interested in introducing responsible legislation that serves these crucial interests. To suggest we are in any way delaying the process for reasons other than those I have touched on, of course, is to miss the point altogether.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not realize he is no longer the Solicitor General but simply the Attorney General and he has a responsibility to the individuals of this province as well as to the law enforcement agency? Does he not agree that the study done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was very detailed, indicated that only 19 cases out of 7,000 were in any way affected by their freedom of information legislation?

Is it not about time he stopped his Mackenzie King-like attitude of postpone, postpone, delay, piling a royal commission on top of a parliamentary inquiry on top of delay by the Provincial Secretary for Justice? Does he not think an individual in this province has the right to the information that the government has accumulated on him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It may come as a great surprise to the member to know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not a law enforcement agency in Canada. He might learn something from this.

The Attorney General has continuing responsibilities with respect to the integrity of law enforcement and the administration of justice in this country. If the member really wants to know what the individuals of this province are thinking and what their concerns are, one of their major concerns is the maintenance of effective law enforcement, which obviously from his statements he would not hesitate to undermine.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, since my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice on this same subject last week evolved into a response that policy had not as yet been decided upon, can the Attorney General advise us whether a freedom of information bill dealing with provincial concerns will be brought into this House during this session, whether or not the federal government proceeds with a uniform bill that the Attorney General might prefer?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the member has just pointed out that the Provincial Secretary for Justice has carriage of this legislation. He is consulting with his colleagues and will continue to consult, but he does have carriage and I think that question should be directed to him.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General is correct, the FBI is not the enforcement agency in Canada but the Canadian Bar Association happens to have some relationship and knowledge of the whole area.

Is the Attorney General aware that the study the Canadian Bar Association released says it "not only responds to Mr. McMurtry's Constitutional concerns but also the myth" -- I repeat, the myth -- "that freedom of information would undermine police attempts to recruit sources"?

In other words, will the Attorney General quit perpetuating myths and bring in freedom of information legislation here that will not have the incestuous quality of going back to the cabinet for the final decision?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my advice to the Canadian Bar Association would be simply to retain the services of professors who have some understanding of law enforcement in this country.

BUY-BACK PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Can the Premier explain how his Minister of Industry and Trade can claim in his speech on April 1 I that the Ontario government buy-back of foreign companies program is a success when only nine out of 60 companies have been saved by that program and only one out of 10 jobs lost by closing of foreign firms has been saved by the program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the program when it was announced -- and I know the acting leader or the leader who is some days an actor, or deputy leader or whatever terminology, would only want us to invest taxpayers' moneys in viable companies -- one of the criteria for the buy-back or the involvement of the government of Ontario is that those companies have a viable opportunity to succeed.

I cannot give chapter and verse of each individual case. I am sure the minister would be delighted to do so but that is one of the criteria which I think has some application on the statistics the member has mentioned.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Premier not realize that his defence lays bare the whole problem of foreign ownership in our economy if they are not able to compete, which is essentially what he is saying?

I am glad to see the former Minister of Industry and Tourism is now prompting the Premier on the question. Does the Premier realize that the ministry officials estimate that there are 2,000 companies that are threatened, that are at risk and that it is predicted will probably close over the next five to six years? At the rate of success that the government has in salvaging those companies, it will take 400 years to re-acquire the companies and the jobs that will be lost over the next five to six years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will not take 400 years.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is indicating that the government is only prepared to engage in the buy-back program for companies that are deemed to be successful in the future, what criteria does the Premier's government use to make that particular decision? In what sense are we looking at companies of the future as well as companies of the past?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not really understand the last part of the question: To what extent are we looking at companies of the past vis-à-vis companies of the future? We are looking at companies that we think have some legitimate opportunities to succeed. They may have a past record or they may not. The criteria depend on each individual case.

Mr. Peterson: You know what you are doing. You are doing an Admiral on Suncor, that is what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the major recipient to date of Suncor's investment that he should be very quiet. I cannot say how encouraged I am, first, that he has publicly said he will keep the money and, second, that he makes the prediction that when he becomes Premier, which will never happen, he will become the employer. That means he has now committed himself to 51 per cent of Suncor. That is a great turnabout. The member is following his former leader. He followed him for four years trying to destroy him and now he is adopting the same approach.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wouldn't say he followed him.

Mr. Bradley: Now, back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for St. Catharines, who loves to interject when there are interjections, that I want to accommodate those who interject. I feel they have relevant points they want to make.

I would say to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that the criteria do vary with individual cases but we do retain or ask outside consultants who have some knowledge in that particular business or industry to give us their assessment. It is not just done internally within the ministry.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier will no doubt be aware that his minister indicated that, as well as the announcement in the throne speech, there will be "a refinement" of the government's buy-back program. Can he assure us that the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) budget will contain the $100 million that will be necessary annually to fund that program if there is any chance of saving the companies and the jobs that will go down the drain because of foreign ownership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has been the tradition and it will continue to be the tradition that there will be funds available for those projects or companies that can be assisted. That makes sense. If we look at the Volkswagen deal, which the member perhaps did not agree with, it was very relevant. It will produce a great deal of economic activity in the Barrie community and the surrounding areas of Simcoe county. I know that upsets the member, but we think it makes great economic sense.

Mr. Foulds: I like Simcoe county.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member likes Simcoe county? He does very well in Simcoe county.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. I did. It was one of the few areas that I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know how well he does in Simcoe county.

I am not in a position to say what is going to be in the budget. The member will have to exercise the same measure of patience as I shall have to exercise and look forward to eight o'clock on May 13 to sit and listen for the first time to what the Treasurer may have in that very important document.

RACCOON DOG FARM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A number of weeks ago, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) asked me a question with respect to a fur farm in the Madoc area to which the proprietors had imported a species of animal known as Finn raccoons. I undertook at that time to have our staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food pursue the matter.

Mr. Peterson: It took you four months to respond.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have only been minister for 11 weeks. I do not know where the member has been. He must have been working with the Gregorian calendar.

At any rate I am happy to report to the honourable member that my staff have reported to me that a tentative agreement has been reached between the owners of the fur farm and Environment Canada. The federal government has apparently agreed to provide compensation and transition expenses to the owners, in return for which the latter have agreed to pelt all of the Finn racoons between December 1 and December 31, 1982. After that point the fur farm will continue to operate with ranch-raised fox.

DREDGING CASE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Having regard to the just concluded discussion about freedom of information in which we were reminded as we always are about the Tory invitation to keep the promise, I wanted to ask the Premier a question concerning a matter I raised on a couple of earlier occasions in this session. It has to do with the promise he made to this assembly almost five years ago, I believe in July 1977.

The promise the Premier made on that occasion was that he would make available the private report of former Ontario Justice Campbell Grant concerning the matters which arose out of certain disclosures from the diary of Mr. Harold McNamara pertaining to various contracts of Ontario Hydro.

Having regard to the fact that the two principals, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Cooper, have not only been sentenced, but in fact have now been released, can he indicate when and how he intends to keep the promise to this assembly by releasing that particular report of the former Justice Campbell Grant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) raised this. I will once again discuss it with the Attorney General. I think the honourable member is aware that while the trials of two of the people involved have been dealt with and are finalized, I cannot tell him how many, perhaps it is two or three cases, are still in process.

Mr. Conway: The Premier has drawn that to our attention on a number of occasions. I think we in the opposition have been patient and responsible. We have waited five years. It does not appear to me that an additional period of waiting is in order. Why are we being stalled on this important matter? Can the Premier give us any justification for this stonewalling? Can he indicate why the people of this province should not believe that this in fact is a cover-up of important public material?

I would like to know when the Attorney General is going to advise the Premier, and when the Premier intends to advise this House, that this report can be made available so that those of us who accepted the Premier's statement of July 1977 in good faith, can continue to live with it in good faith and the expectation that some day that promise will be kept.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the honourable member to become too exercised because if he will recall what I said in the statement, and I am only going by memory, I indicated -- not as to the personalities involved or anything of that nature -- that former Justice Campbell Grant made it quite clear that there was nothing inappropriate. I just wish the member would remind people of that particular part of the statement, which I think is relevant.

We are not stonewalling anything. I am guided by the Attorney General and I am interested that the proper process is followed. I can only assure the member that when that report is released, I am sure he will share, with me, the pleasure of reading its contents. It may disappoint him.

COLE CASE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. On the evening of April 20, I had occasion to watch the segment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. public affairs program related to the circumstances surrounding the case of the crown versus Derrick Cole. I am sure the Attorney General is quite familiar with that case as he entered a stay of proceedings, which has now become permanent, denying Mr. Cole a new trial on a charge of murder.

In view of the fact that Mr. Cole spent some three and a half years in prison before the court of appeal ordered the new trial and before the opportunity arose for him to be released, would the Attorney General, in the special, particular and singular circumstances of that case, consider paying compensation to Mr. Cole for the injustice he has suffered?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member for Riverdale is obviously important. It has very broad implications, relevant as they are to Mr. Cole.

The reasons for not proceeding with this case are not consistent in my view with the member's statement that an injustice was perpetrated. There are many legal reasons for not proceeding with a particular prosecution that are obviously quite unrelated to the fundamental concepts of justice, those of guilt and innocence. These cases come up from time to time. For example, when people have spent a long time incarcerated prior to trials which occasionally lead to convictions, the question arises as to whether there should be some form of compensation.

I have always adopted the view that, to justify compensation in these circumstances, there should be some process or mechanism by which a properly constituted tribunal could make a determination of the probable innocence of the individual as opposed to the inability of the crown to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have discussed this issue on many occasions with members of the defence bar. Interestingly enough, the defence bar has demonstrated little interest in this concept. Before we seriously consider compensating people in these circumstances, there has to some form of hearing to establish that an injustice was done. I did not see the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. segment. I had heard about it but in my view there has to be some tribunal to determine in these circumstances the probable innocence of the individual involved.

Mr. Renwick: I trust the Attorney General will recall that I used the term, "special, particular and singular circumstances of that case." I am not entering into a general discussion of the question.

In the light of his reply, will he now review again the four reasons why the Court of Appeal of Ontario directed a new trial in the case and why he entered the stay of proceedings which is now permanent, based upon the evidence of Judge Rice taken in Jamaica which made it quite evident that, had a new trial proceeded, Mr. Cole would in all probability have been acquitted of the offence? Will the Attorney General review each and every piece of the proceedings in that case and will he make them available to us here in the assembly? Will he deal with the question of compensation for this particular injustice with an open mind?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: At this moment, I do not recall each and all of the details of the case. I will certainly review the details of this particular case. I would like to share much, if not all of this material with the member for Riverdale and other members of the House who may be interested. I am quite happy to make that undertaking. Not being familiar with all the documentation, I cannot make a blanket undertaking at this time, but I hope there will be nothing I would be unable to share with the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney General might consider that the development of a procedure to deal with instances like this might well be a function of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since it attempts in a somewhat judicial way to come to a conclusion as to the value that should be paid by the public of Ontario for injuries that might have occurred to individuals in the course of crimes being committed. Perhaps if the Attorney General would seek the board's views as to how this procedure might be in place for cases of this type, there would be a way of dealing with this particular problem.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome any continuing discussion in this area. The criminal injuries compensation concept is an interesting one. I think most commentators have generally come to the conclusion that, if we were to attempt to provide compensation in cases where the person is probably innocent -- and I think most people agree there would have to be some determination of that -- probably the best way to do it would be to institute a further finding by the jury or by the trial judge. For example, I believe Scotland has the "not guilty" verdict and the "not proven" verdict. There might be some usefulness in that approach.

As I say, the general issue is one I have been interested in for some time and I have always been happy to encourage public discussion. Curiously enough, there has been relatively little interest in this initiative coming from the defence bar. I mention this fact because they are the individuals in the community who are most knowledgeable about what is happening in our courts on a day to day basis.

WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION GRANT

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) regarding a watermain construction grant to Rochester township. The minister's predecessor approved this grant of $969,000 on March 20, 1981, and the Ontario Municipal Board approved it on the basis of the provincial grant. Now the minister's officials have sent a letter to the township saying that instead of being entitled to $969,000, it will only be entitled to $90,000. The township has already called tenders and is ready to accept the lowest tender. What can the minister do to alleviate the situation the ministry has put the township in?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there is a great deal I can do at this time on that particular matter. There have been some preliminary discussions, I understand, between the head of the legal services branch of my ministry and some of the people from the municipality, explaining to them how the error that has now come to light, was made. We have certainly not made any pretence of denying the fact that there was an error. It was a very substantial one in terms of the calculation.

The municipality was also advised, as I understand it, by the head of our legal services branch that it ought to bear that in mind in considering whether it wishes to proceed any further with the tenders it has called. It is my understanding that it is not proceeding at this point. I think that is the wise thing to do until the matter is further sorted out.

Obviously, it is not a very pleasant situation for anyone to discover that an error of such magnitude has been made. But I might say it is fortunate it was discovered now rather than after the municipality had entered into any further commitments. We will be discussing the matter with the municipality in an effort to try to find a resolution that will enable it to proceed with the project, if at all possible. But I do not think anyone would advocate that because a year and a half ago someone made an error in a calculation, just because we are handling public funds we should ignore the fact there was an error of almost $1 million in that calculation.

Mr. Ruston: If there was an error a year and a half ago, why did the minister not go before the Ontario Municipal Board and advise the board at its hearing that there was a problem so that at least it would have known? And is it an error or is it a change of the ministry's rules and regulations?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that it is not a change in any policy or regulation within the ministry. It was clearly an error in calculation on the application or in the formula for calculating the level of the grant for which that municipality was eligible. The reason that it was not brought to the attention of the Ontario Municipal Board at the time of the hearing was that no one was aware of it at the time. In fact, that error was very recently discovered and brought to my attention.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, if I can get his attention. Has the minister yet had an opportunity to consider the rather serious issues raised by the Etobicoke Mental Health Services Agency in a letter to him of April 1? This letter suggested that after the closure of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, the resources of the two general hospitals in Etobicoke were already strained. Is the minister now prepared to expand the number of psychiatric beds at the Queensway General Hospital and the Etobicoke General Hospital? Is he also prepared to maintain the secondary care at the Queensway, since this is obviously needed and is pointed out in this letter?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, all of those things are being looked at by the ministry and, as he also knows, I am most concerned about the question of psychiatric facilities in that part of the city. We are obviously in the process of undertaking certain initiatives, which I hope will be completed shortly. In part, they will reflect, I think, the good work of Dr. Heseltine and as well the early decisions made by Dr. Malcolmson at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and the working committee under Sister Janet Murray.

All of these things are coming together to enable us to make some decisions with regard to psychiatric facilities in that whole part of the city and the whole catchment area. So those things are all under review. None of the issues the member has raised will be addressed in isolation. However, these issues will be addressed in the next couple of months.

Mr. Philip: Would the minister give us some indication of when we will have the results of these deliberations and considerations? Would the minister also inform us whether or not the re-establishment of a security treatment unit in Etobicoke is being considered? Can he give us some idea of specifically what proposals are being examined to expand the community-based mental health support services in the borough of Etobicoke?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That would require a very lengthy answer, which I am prepared to provide in writing in a letter. I am meeting with Sister Janet Murray next week to review the status of her committee. I know she is coming in with some specific recommendations at that time, which is why she wants to see me next week. Second, Dr. Heseltine's report will be out in May, so we are looking at a fairly short time frame.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that in many communities in this province -- Toronto is one that has received a lot of publicity, and my own has received some very lately -- there is a large number of ex-psychiatric patients who have no place to go in the communities, is the minister reviewing the practice of the psychiatric hospitals -- or of this minister, whatever it happens to be -- of releasing these people when in fact there is no place for them to go?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if to any extent there is a perception that we are confining our studies and works to the situation surrounding the Queen Street Mental Health Centre I want to assure the member and those from other parts of the province that, as I said very directly in my speech yesterday morning, the problem is not confined to the Parkdale area or to the Toronto area but is spread throughout many communities in the province. Therefore, we are studying the whole situation with a view to making sure that deinstitutionalization does not occur without the proper community infrastructure and support. That is not going to happen.

11 a.m.

FARM ASSISTANCE ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in its submission to cabinet and to the minister on Wednesday confirmed the inadequacies of the farm adjustment assistance program, will the minister amend this program immediately to make deferred interest and new lines of credit eligible for interest assistance, which will at least go part way to meet the recommendations of the ministry-appointed Action Committee?

Will he give a commitment to extend this program to next year? As the minister knows, a good many bank managers are reluctant to carry out their function in the program because they say it is only for one year; they consider it hardly worth their effort. It is a big stumbling block.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, we do not know, nor does the honourable member, that a great many bank managers are reluctant. One hears these rumours, and every time I hear the rumour and every time I hear that sort of statement made here, I say to members: "Give me specifics. Give me names. Give me names of branches. Give me names of farmers who are involved." But I never get them from members over there. I have yet to get one. I am sorry; that is not true. I got one from the member's colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) about a bank manager in Grey, and I think we got that straightened out. If the member knows specifics, I ask him to give them to me.

With respect to the development of the farm adjustment assistance program, I remind the member that the program is based almost verbatim on the report that was signed by, among others, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The program was developed on the assumption that the federal government would ensure that the Farm Credit Corp. was able to meet the credit needs of the farm community in 1982.

As the member knows, in recent years the Liberal Party in Ottawa has gradually diminished the role of the FCC to the point where last year, I believe, we ended up with about $125 million in Ontario. To his credit, the federal minister has promised repeatedly that by June there will be $1 billion of credit available to the FCC. We are glad to hear that. But we have not seen it yet, although the promise has been made several times. Assuming that promise is kept, then a great many of the problems facing the farm community will be addressed.

With respect to this program, it is intended to be a one-year program based on those assumptions. I said to the federation at our meeting on Wednesday, and I have said publicly on a number of occasions, that if the federal government lets us down completely, then obviously we are going to have to take stock again of this program and all our programs to see where we go from here. At this point, there are no plans to extend it to 1983, nor are there plans to change the program beyond the changes I made about six weeks ago by extending the criteria to embrace a great many more farmers.

I remind the member that the three options are aimed at specific types of farm credit problems. They can be used in combination, albeit not in the same amount of money. In some cases, all three options have been used by an individual farmer, but in different amounts of money. So I think it is being applied in a rather flexible way.

If we could just get the co-operation of the people directly opposite to assist us in ensuring that we get the co-operation that has been promised by the federal government, that would go a long way towards relieving some problems.

Mr. McGuigan: Certainly we will co-operate in every way, but even if the federal government does come through with the $1 billion -- which I hope it will, because I understand this money would represent about 60 per cent of the amount of credit needed for farming -- does the minister not realize that farmers are just not in the position to pay an interest rate of 16.5 per cent?

I think the minister will agree that, with the Alsands project and another multibillion-dollar project being decided today, we are going to face high interest rates for many years to come. The agriculture industry of Ontario, even more than the agriculture industry in other parts of Canada, cannot bear the cost of interest rates that high. Therefore, the only hope we have lies with this government.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is an interesting statement, that the member has given up on the government of Canada. Let the record show that the honourable member is nodding his head; he has given up on the government of Canada.

Let there be no doubt, as was said to the federation on Wednesday, that we will do our share; we have already indicated that with the $60 million we put into the farm adjustment assistance program, the $60 million we put out on beef and hogs in 1981, the commitment to develop a new program for beginning farmers, the commitment of this government to contribute not only to the design but also to the financing of a national tripartite stabilization plan. We are prepared to do our share but we cannot do it all; we need the co-operation of the federal government.

NONRESIDENT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We might as well keep him busy.

Since it is five months since the conclusion of the December 1 tabulation of foreign ownership of land in accordance with the requirements of the nonresident registration legislation that was passed in this House, will the minister explain why we have not had a final report to supplement the interim report given in December as to exactly what was found out?

Will the minister now accept that, whatever he found out, if it is in line with the interim report it is already totally discredited by information from many counties where there are thousands of acres of differences from his interim report survey? What is he going to do to come to grips with this issue after literally years of procrastinating in one way or another?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have had that report updated to the end of March. I am preparing a submission to my cabinet colleagues, giving them the figures and indicating to them what I think would be an appropriate position for us to take on the matter. Once that has been reviewed with my cabinet colleagues, I will be making a statement; and, as I indicated to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Wednesday, I anticipate that will be before the end of this session.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister will be aware the figures that emerged from the rural development outreach project are totally different from the figures in his interim report. Is he persuaded that something was wrong in the methodology of his survey so that it simply does not represent the reality?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I anticipate dealing with that aspect in my remarks before the end of the session. I am aware of the calculations of the group at Guelph as compared to the reports we have had, and I will deal with that matter in my statement as well.

SALES TAX REBATES

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is the minister aware that, in an apparently desperate move to hold on to every last cent of revenue in the province, the Ministry of Revenue is no longer making available to retail outlets or to tourists the convenient information brochures on the seven per cent sales tax rebate on goods taken out of the province within 30 days?

If the minister is aware, has he informed the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) or the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who may have initiated the change, that this served as quite an incentive to tourists making purchases in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that. Since it has been drawn to my attention, I will communicate with the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Eakins: Does it not concern the minister that the tourism sector has been hit with a double blow this year with the reimposition of the accommodation tax and, in effect, the loss of the sales tax rebate on goods taken out of the province within 30 days since people cannot get the information they need?

A number of people in Metro Toronto are complaining that these brochures are not available. Even in the Ontario travel office, across the street, they are kept under the counter like a censored book and are only available on request.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated in response to the original question, I will be taking this up with the Minister of Revenue.

11:10 a.m.

CALTRAV CORP.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the report he tabled this morning relative to the deregistration of Sunflight Vacations and Skylark Holidays. The minister will agree that was a very barebones report he gave. He must have some substantial information on the basis of which the freezing and the liquidation were initiated. Can he tell the House whether it is likely people are going to be hurt? If so, what class are they and how many?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member first that there was no intent to deprive the House of any information. As I am sure he knows, there have been a lot of things going on over the past 24 hours. Let us speak quite candidly here. Staff and members of the travel industry have been virtually up all night on these issues, and they are still working on it. I am not trying to withhold information, but things are still in quite a state of flux.

However, let me say that the travel industry, as it has in other events, has come together remarkably well and now is assembling a group to endeavour to work out arrangements, whatever they may be, with respect to all of the people who are away on flights and vacations already and those who have planned. I cannot say what the final arrangements will be. I just cannot do that. I will as soon as the information is available. We hope that much more information will be available by the time of the press conference at 1 p.m. today, but it just was not available to me at the time I came to the House.

Mr. Swart: Can I simply ask whether the travel industry compensation fund will be applicable to all these travellers and to all those who have paid for their tickets to provide compensation in full?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The travel industry compensation fund, as the member knows, does apply to these cases. There is a limit on the fund. I believe the maximum in any event is something in the neighbourhood of $1.2 million. I cannot say at this time whether there will be 100 cents paid on the dollar, because we do not know what the assets remaining in the two suspended companies will be. Let me assure the member that our staff and all members involved in this will be endeavouring to make sure there is a substantial, if not 100 per cent, recovery; but I just do not know that information yet.

USE OF HEROIN IN CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, a significant number of people in the province have expressed the view that the drug known as heroin should be licensed for medical use to stop what newspaper columnist Dr. Kenneth Walker refers to as the "torment of the final throes of terminal cancer and patients who are allergic to morphine, or for whom that drug is no longer sufficient without many painful injections."

In view of the fact that 37 other countries, including England and West Germany, have legalized the use of heroin for strictly definitive medical purposes, is the minister prepared to make representations at this time to the federal ministers of Health and Justice to make the necessary changes in Canadian law to permit what Dr. Walker calls the ultimate humanitarian act to legally take place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to hear representations with a view to hearing the various sides on that and then consider the matter.

Mr. Bradley: The minister will be aware that the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) has been very active on this question. Can the minister confirm whether any specific members of his ministry are dealing with this proposal at this time, or is he going to act on the information and advice of outside agencies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would rely in this circumstance both on advice from outside and the advice of my ministry staff.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with you a point of privilege concerning the right of members of this assembly to get information.

I have tried, and I know other members have tried, to determine how much it is costing this government to prepare a proposal on market value assessment here in response to a request from Metro Toronto council. We are able to see projected costs in the estimates of some $12 million for assessment purposes. I have asked questions in the House to which the minister has not provided any information.

On Wednesday of this week, because I happened to have a visitor, Ron Kennedy from Midland Collegiate, we thought we would give him an opportunity to do a little grass-roots research; so we put him on the telephone and asked him to call some of the assessment offices around Ontario and see how many valuation officers had been assigned on the current program. They have been working in Metro on this project for two weeks and then back in their own areas for one. He managed to get answers from the first seven phone calls he made, totalling, I believe, 101 valuation officers here in Metro.

After that, Ron wanted to go off to committees and see how committees function here, which he did. When he returned in the afternoon, a strange phenomenon occurred. In the afternoon's phone calls none of the regional offices would answer the question. All the regional officers referred it to the minister's office, which we did. It has taken two days, but today I did receive a piece of paper, which I take it is from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) although it is not acknowledged. It answers part of the question, saying that there are 224 valuation staff in Toronto. But, again, there is no reply to the question of how many of these people are being brought in from outside Metro to conduct this one project.

Mr. Speaker, there are rumours that the program in question is extremely expensive, because large numbers of valuation officers are coming into Metro on overtime and travelling expense and setting aside regular duties back home to conduct this project. I would like to know how we are supposed to find out what that project is costing. Written questions have been tried by other members and oral questions by me; and I have attempted, through Ron Kennedy, to ask regional offices to provide that information. They did initially and subsequently refused.

We have asked the minister's office exactly how members of this Legislature are to find out information of that nature, which surely is a public matter, before the deed is done. I understand that a year or so from now the public accounts committee may have access to that. The fact is that the project is going on now. Are members of this Legislature not supposed to have the traditional right of opposition members to make inquiries, to get answers on matters of this nature and to ascertain such information?

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, if the minister replies to that, I would like to speak on this point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to hear whether he can reply first.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to honourable members that this is not really a point of privilege. Obviously it is up to the government to supply information and answers to questions and so on. It is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a go-between. In fact, I would not want to jeopardize my position by being asked to perform such a function. This is somewhat similar, I think, to a matter of privilege that was raised by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) last week. I will prepare a reply on matters of privilege as I see them and have it ready for maybe next Tuesday or Thursday.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, when you are preparing that, perhaps you might consider that it has been a traditional right of members of Parliament on all sides to visit certain institutions to gather information. It has always been my practice while I have been a member here, and I thought a reasonable one, that when I wanted to know something I would sometimes call the minister's office when it was information that had to be collated; but I also felt quite free to call hospitals, health councils or any agency of the government.

It has always been my experience that if it was a reasonable request, information would be given freely and openly without any problems. Then it was our job to take that information and translate it into something politically relevant. It now appears fairly clear to me that what has been a traditional source of information for members of the Legislature has been closed. Mr. Speaker, that does speak about the rights and privileges of members of this assembly to get information. We are not asking for secret documents. We are not asking for cabinet reports. We are asking for simple information. It seems to me that is a matter of privilege for the members of this assembly.

Mr. Epp: Further to that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I must tell you of an experience I had a few weeks ago. I put something on the Order Paper and asked for some lists from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). The ministry sent back an answer saying it did not have those lists available; and if I had not persisted in trying to get that information, it would not have given it to me. Finally, on Wednesday I got the list of all the municipal councils in Ontario, but they were trying to tell me that information was not available to me.

11:20 a.m.

My experience has been that when we asked for information during the minority government it was much more readily available. Why has there been this change of tactics? In addition to the case I have already mentioned, we asked for information about the number of assessors in the city of Toronto and how much the assessment operation was costing the government, and they were not inclined to come forward with that kind of information. In all fairness to the opposition parties, I think this information should be made available.

My predecessor in the House told me that when he had dealings with a certain senior minister of the crown, that minister always gave his officials the right to release whatever information was requested by the opposition critic. That minister felt very secure in his position and knew he could defend that information. I am wondering whether the present unwillingness of ministers to provide information to opposition members indicates some lack of security in their portfolios.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North has supported what I said earlier, that this information must come from government. By his persistence, he obviously got that information.

The member for Oshawa raised an interesting matter on his second point of privilege, which was somewhat different from the first. I shall take that under consideration.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, anticipating your report back to the House, I wonder whether you would also take into consideration the point I raised some time ago.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Let me make it clear that I did not say I would report back to the House. Nor do I think I will. I do not think that is my responsibility. I did say, specifically to the point that was raised by the member for Oshawa, that I would take it under consideration.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, although I think you should make a report back to the House so that the House may be guided by your direction in this matter, perhaps you will also take under consideration a similar situation I raised two or three weeks ago with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). It had to do with a document that had been made available to the public and to constituents, but I could not get a copy. This can be checked in Hansard. I wonder if we might have some direction as to whether the minister has the authority to give documents to the public and to withhold them from members of any party.

Mr. Speaker: There is perhaps some misunderstanding on the matter of privilege. I would like to prepare something on that for the benefit of all honourable members.

Ms. Copps: You will be reporting to the House on that?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I will give a direction or ruling, whatever you wish to call it.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege regarding the Ministry of Revenue: There is an established procedure within this Legislature. If a member has what he or she feels is a legitimate request, there are two ways to go about it that are valid and in order. One is to ask the question during the question period. The other is to put a written request on the Order Paper. In this way we can see that the request for information is answered reasonably and responsibly.

When it is the kind of answer that takes a great deal of time and/or resources, that can be indicated so that the record will indicate the question, the nature of the question and the nature of the answer required. This helps to avoid misinterpretation. In many of these issues that is the concern on the part of the government; I know it is mine personally. There are two ways to do it, and we are happy to respond. For my own part, I will be generous.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the comments of the Minister of Revenue on these points of order. He correctly stated that we have but two avenues of inquiry available to us in this assembly and they are as he stated them. But there is no correlative responsibility on the government to answer reasonably or responsibly or, indeed, to answer at all. That is the problem.

Ms. Copps: I want to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is something you might consider in your further deliberations. I refer to Hansard of April 22, when this party and the third party raised a number of concerns about the role of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) vis-à-vis the district health councils. At that time you said, "I am sure the Minister of Health will take notice of your remarks and respond." I wonder whether you might consider those Hansard remarks in your deliberations on the responsibilities of ministers to answer.

Mr. Speaker: That was the very point to which I was referring when I referred to the point of privilege raised by the member for Ottawa East, and I will respond or have a ruling on what constitutes privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those who have participated in the debate, and especially the many who made positive and constructive comments. All the members' proposals will receive the attention they deserve.

Before commenting on my two chief critics' statements, I want to touch very briefly on most or all of the statements made by the other members, and I will do so more or less in the reverse of the order in which they were made.

As I said, I appreciate the helpful suggestions and proposals that were made, such as the one by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) on the convention capacity, or perhaps the lack of it, throughout Ontario. This matter has been of considerable concern to our government, and steps have been taken towards correcting the situation in a variety of ways, including the present construction of a convention centre in Ottawa as well as allotting funds for a world-class convention centre here in Toronto.

While it is true, as the member for Riverdale observed, that only Toronto has the capacity for large conventions here in Ontario, the fact is that even Toronto does not yet have a convention centre which can place it in a position to compete with world-class convention facilities such as exist in Berlin, London, Chicago and so on.

With the completion of the convention centre currently under way in Toronto, this city will be in that world-class league. But obviously, in addition to that, we need a network of convention centres of various sizes across the province, and we need to assist in their development in a systematic and comprehensive manner. With this in mind we helped to establish the Ontario Association of Convention Bureaux, at whose annual meeting I spoke a few weeks ago. And yes, I agree that conventions are a very important element in tourism, and it is a matter that will actively engage us.

I appreciate particularly the supportive comments made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) on the need to place more emphasis on our heritage trails and highways. I also appreciated his comments on the hospitality he finds in the land of my forefathers up in Waterloo county. His enthusiasm for Pennsylvania Dutch cooking inspires me to send him a copy of Edna Staebler's recipe book entitled Food That Really Schmecks. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) will also know the book, I am sure.

Many of the comments extolled the virtues and beauties of the areas that the honourable members represent. This illustrated once again that Ontario is richly blessed with a wide range of beautiful and exciting places to visit, many of which are unfortunately not well enough known. It is this very reason that has stimulated us to develop and pursue as our central theme and slogan, "Ontario -- yours to discover!"

I have to admit, and others probably will agree, that the debate last Tuesday was itself somewhat of a discovery tour. Who, for example, had heard of Shining Tree before the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) drew it to our attention? How many of us had heard of the Sauk and Fox Trail until the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) brought it to our attention? How many of us knew of the full beauty of Sherkston Beaches until the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) spoke of it? How many of us had forgotten, if we ever knew, the splendour of the Grand River in and around Port Dover before the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) reminded us of these Meccas for tourism?

11:30 a.m.

My colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) reminded us again of the beauty of the Ontario farm and the need for us to do more to encourage tourists to spend refreshing and wholesome vacations on an Ontario farm through the Ontario farm vacation program, a program that my ministry is now promoting. My colleague the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) extolled the virtues and beauties of the historical Ottawa Valley and the whitewater country of the Madawaska River valley.

Although I realize, along with others, that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is a true fan of the true north, I could not help but think he painted a slightly too gloomy picture of that part of our province. My impression was perhaps slightly coloured, because I had just come from a visit to northern Ontario several hours before the debate. My memories were still vivid with the sight of that great tourist attraction, Thunder Bay's Old Fort William, now a part of my ministry, and the big Thunder Bay ski jump, which is also a part of my ministry and which I might add has become a world-class ski jump.

I could not help but wonder how the member for Sudbury East could possibly overlook the newest tourism gem of the north, the Sudbury Science Centre, currently under construction in Sudbury. While it is true, as he noted, that the Royal Ontario Museum has received very substantial support to maintain its world-class status, I believe the almost $10 million spent by the provincial government on the Sudbury Science Centre provides conclusive evidence that we have not forgotten the north in establishing tourist attractions such as this.

The pièce de résistance of the north continues to be the vast, varied and almost overpowering natural beauty of its lakes, rivers and forests. I share the conviction expressed by several honourable members that we dare not squander this natural beauty. I intend to work as a strong advocate to preserve this beauty and to work along with such very influential private sector groups as the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association and the regional tourist associations. I have had the pleasure of meeting both groups.

I cannot disagree with the comment that the tendency in the past has been to regard only the industries of mining and forestry as having economic value while overlooking or underestimating the economic value of tourism as well as its contribution to our quality of life. To help me bring to the table some more quantitative arguments on behalf of the tourist industry, we have just employed an economist who has specialized in precisely this field. I have also had several talks with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), and I am confident that in future, through ongoing dialogue, collaboration and joint agreement, the needs of tourism will be taken into account when decisions are reached on such issues as access roads.

As the member for Sudbury East observed, there is no easy consensus between the demands of those depending on the mining and forestry industries and those promoting tourism. Nevertheless, the proper balance is something for which we must constantly strive.

Likewise, I intend to be an advocate for the tourist industry on such issues as fish and wildlife protection. I have already had a number of discussions on this subject with the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. I did not conclude from these conversations that the lack of fish is their greatest concern. Indeed, I was impressed to hear several of its members remark that if the tourist fishermen come to the beautiful north only to take home vast quantities of fish, they would be better advised to go to their nearest fish market or perhaps even Lake Erie, where sport and commercial fishing is once again thriving. In the minds of the NOTOA, neither the local fish market nor Lake Erie can provide that intoxicating feeling of being in private communion with nature which only the beautiful and remote northern lakes can offer.

The threat of acid rain to our lakes and indirectly to tourism was noted by several members. This too is a subject that is now receiving and will continue to receive my close attention.

A number of speakers referred to that very rich potential tourist population living in the United States within a one-day drive of the Canadian border. My ministry is not only keenly aware of this valuable resource, but we are right now marketing those areas aggressively and I feel with good success, with the intention of bringing more and more US residents to Ontario. Whether the true gateway to Ontario or Canada is Fort Erie, as the member for Erie contends, or Windsor, as the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) suggests, or whether in fact it is Sault Ste. Marie or sunset country, is not for me the most important concern. What is important is that more Americans be encouraged to discover our province and all its beauty. As I see it, the objective is one that we are progressively pursuing.

It is interesting to note that approximately 50 per cent of all our media dollars are spent in 11 markets in the United States, that 41 per cent of these media dollars are spent in Ontario and eight per cent in international markets and the rest of Canada.

Going back again to some comments made by the member for Sudbury East with regard to the field of sports, I was interested and encouraged to read yesterday's sport headline in the Toronto Star and I quote: Ontario Has its Sporting Priorities Right. The article refers to Ontario as "the leader in supporting its amateur athletes." It is a reputation which I can assure members is one we in this ministry are proud of and firmly committed to maintaining.

Just recently I approved a grant of $2.5 million towards the relocation of the Ontario Sports Administrative Centre which will house 42 of Ontario's sports governing bodies, a move which will surely contribute significantly to the further enrichment of sports programs in this province.

The member for Sudbury East also spoke at some length on the subject of violence in amateur hockey. This is a problem which I have shared with that member since the early days of my previous portfolio. I plan to meet with representatives of the Hockey Ontario development committee in the near future to squarely address these and other issues and discuss future directions.

I would like to turn now to specific comments made by my two chief critics, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). I was very pleased to hear that the member for Victoria-Haliburton and his party are prepared to support the legislation establishing the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. That is perhaps not totally surprising in light of recommendations made by a Liberal Party task force headed by the member several years ago.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton referred to the national deficit in tourism and the fact that Ontario's share is being reduced. I am pleased to say the following statistics bear this out. In 1978, Ontario registered a 38.4 per cent share of national tourism deficit. Since then, that share has been progressively reduced to 29.4 per cent.

I also share the observations of the member about the need for us to collaborate with municipalities and private operators as we develop our tourism market. Although this ministry has within its mandate several very large publicly owned tourist attractions, such as the Niagara parks, Ontario Place, the St. Lawrence parks, including Upper Canada Village, Old Fort Henry and so forth, the bulk of tourism operations are owned and directed by private entrepreneurs. We see within our role the need to enhance their capabilities and assist in their marketing programs.

The feasibility study referred to by the member for Victoria-Haliburton as well as by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), reflects this point very clearly. While it is generally agreed that a major four-season top quality heritage inn could do much to enhance the tourism industry in the Crysler Battlefield Park area, the $30,000 cost-shared feasibility study which I announced last week will allow us to examine the impact, both negative and positive, that such a heritage inn might have on other existing regional hotels and motels.

11:40 a.m.

On the matter of sales tax on rooms and the tax on meals over $6, as I indicated during question period, I have brought the concerns of the industry to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). He has the onerous and perhaps unhappy responsibility for balancing these needs and requirements against those of other industries and individuals.

I have noted the observations made by the member for Victoria-Haliburton on the need for training programs in the tourism industry. I agree entirely with him that human resources are a vital part of the tourism industry and unless we can continue to develop that element, much of our advertising and marketing program in the long run will have been in vain. In other words, to strengthen our marketing and advertising programs we need to ensure a high-calibre delivery of tourism services.

Both critics indicated they want to see a printed annual report of the ministry presented to the Legislature and an amendment to this effect has been put by the member for Lake Nipigon. I would like to assure the members we agree with this and will support that amendment.

I would now like to respond to some of the comments made by the critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Lake Nipigon. I was pleased to hear his very positive remarks about the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation, a ministry I had the pleasure of serving for over three and a half years, a rather lengthy period in the life of any minister. It is reassuring to note that my years in that ministry and my labours in that vineyard were not in vain.

I think it is important to remind ourselves that structures, whether they be ministries of government, or agencies or corporations in the nongovernment sector are not an end in themselves. Structures are merely a means to an end, which in the case of government is to provide services and programs to an identified constituency. The important question must therefore always be whether the services and programs are being delivered effectively, and not whether certain structures are to be maintained indefinitely.

If we lose sight of this and concentrate our efforts on the maintenance of the structure, the end results, on which I need not elaborate, could be somewhat less than desirable. Ministries are not built for ministers, deputy ministers or bureaucracies. Ministries are built to serve people. Indeed, I think it can be a refreshing and rejuvenating exercise to change structures from time to time. I am confident that is exactly what will happen with the restructuring of the ministries which involves the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Our first objective, as always, will be to serve our clients. As my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) has already indicated, it is his and my intention to provide these services and programs through what we have called a one-window approach to the communities, organizations and individuals we serve.

We have already taken substantial steps to rationalize our field organization. No doubt some further fine tuning of the delivery system of the two ministries will be required, but these adjustments will not entail any legislative change. This fine tuning can be provided through changes in administrative procedures, financial arrangements and administrative decisions. I urge members opposite to apply the same criterion which we will be applying, namely, does the system work and does it provide the services intended? If it does not, we will be prepared to make the necessary changes.

In working out this modus operandi, I will continue to work closely with the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario which is serving as my advisory committee and which maintains a network of contacts at the grassroots level.

I would like at this time to state for the record how much I have appreciated the work and support the federation has given me over the last three and a half years in the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I look forward, as I know my staff does, to continued close collaboration with that body which is so essential in the recreational field in this province.

The member for Lake Nipigon has also indicated he cannot support this legislation because we have not included within the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation the administration of the Parks Assistance Act. He is therefore introducing an amendment to include the Parks Assistance Act in my ministry.

I am aware a school of thought exists which supports the view that the Parks Assistance Act should be a part of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. There is, on the other hand, an equally strong opinion which maintains that the Parks Assistance Act should remain with the Ministry of Natural Resources. To air these views and to allow for an effective exchange of ideas I have assured the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario that a meeting of the federation, myself, and the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff will be arranged at an early date.

At this point I cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this meeting. I can only say that, as the members opposite know, legislation is not enshrined in granite, and if in the fullness of time and in the light of the wisdom of the day legislation should be changed, that can be done.

On the matter of the administration of regulation 200 I would like to assure the member for Lake Nipigon that regulation 200 as well as the Community Recreation Centres Act will be fully administered by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Likewise, the overall direction of Wintario grants, both capital and noncapital programs, as they relate to recreation, sports and fitness will fall within my ministry's mandate.

The member for Lake Nipigon has also referred to the Fisher report. I am pleased he has done so, because I frankly believe that the Douglas Fisher report has made a very substantial contribution to the recreational and particularly the sports field in this province. Unlike so many other reports that end up collecting dust, I am pleased to tell the member that 14 of Mr. Fisher's recommendations have already been implemented, and more are still to come.

On the question of the lead ministry, a step proposed by the member for Lake Nipigon, I can only say that I fully agree with him. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, as its title implies, should serve as the lead ministry for recreation, whether it be in a de jure or a de facto sense. I believe this recommendation can be achieved in a de facto way even if not in a precisely formal de jure manner. In other words, the ministry simply assumes the lead.

The lead role could also be recognized perhaps somewhat more formally, and this has already been done. I would like to read briefly the following extract from a letter dated April 15, 1982, directed to Mr. Robert Arnot, chairman of the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, by the Premier (Mr. Davis):

"I noted your recommendation regarding the need for a lead ministry for all matters pertaining to recreation. Please be assured that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has that responsibility, and I look forward to Mr. Baetz and his staff to provide the recreation viewpoint on all matters brought to cabinet and cabinet committees."

The paramount fact remains that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is the lead ministry in recreation and tourism.

On the matter of what acts and agencies to include or not to include within the structure of the ministry I think it could be stated fairly that one can develop almost any rationale for including a great deal or very little within the administration of any ministry. For example, an argument could be made, and indeed has been made, that some of our major cultural attractions, such as the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario or the Ontario Science Centre, should be part of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation because these are, after all, tourist attractions.

Likewise, in view of the fact that so many of our provincial parks are major attractions for tourism it could be argued that they too could be included in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. In a similar vein it could be argued, and indeed it has been argued during our debate, that certain parts of the Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. should be part of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation because of their activities in the development of such projects as marinas.

So while a rationale could be developed to include almost anything under the sun having to do with tourism within the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, I think common sense predicates that there have to be some parameters, some limits. Otherwise the ministry simply becomes too enormous, unwieldy and cumbersome and ultimately collapses under its own weight.

11:50 a.m.

I believe the parameters which have been established for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation make a great deal of sense. We have those components which we feel are necessary and which we can administer, ourselves, effectively. Beyond that, the ministry has set out for itself a clear tourism advocacy role in relation to other ministries, for those areas of human endeavour and activity which are of great interest to tourism but which do not fall directly within my ministry's administration.

For example, I can and will speak out for adequate fish and wildlife protection, but I can do so without becoming engaged in the running of fish hatcheries. I can and will speak out for further development of our cultural attractions because of their interest to tourists.

In conclusion, I will simply repeat my earlier message. I believe this ministry has the challenge of a first-class job in both tourism and recreation, and the resources to do it. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals whose hard work and effort over the past weeks have gone towards making the transition into this new and great ministry a smooth one.

I believe this ministry will enhance tourism and recreational fields, as both build upon natural affinities and share complementary goals. In this I seek the critical support of the members opposite.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT

Consideration of Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Mr. Stokes: This is not on the Order Paper for today.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, following the interjection by my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon, I heard the comment from across the floor that this bill, Bill 41, is on the Order Paper for committee of the whole House. I am just checking the Order Paper and it is not on it for committee of the whole House today.

Mr. Mitchell: I apologize. It is not.

Mr. Renwick: It was to resume the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading. I would respectfully ask that this particular bill be stood down in committee of the whole at this point.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Epp): My information is it was announced by the House leader last evening that it would be coming up for discussion in committee of the whole today.

Mr. Renwick: I understand the extempore announcements and interjections of the government House leader on Thursday evening outlined the business of the day as a guidance for the next week. What I and other members of the House go by is the business in the House for Friday, April 30, morning sitting, as set out in the orders which are before us.

Mr. Stokes: I have no objections to proceeding with it.

Mr. Ruston: I have no objections to standing it down. I was under the impression we were going to go ahead with it, but apparently they forgot to put it on the Order Paper.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, it was intended that we would proceed. In all our talks, we talked about proceeding. I understand it is just to add an amendment that everyone agrees to.

The Acting Chairman: If it is the wish of the House to proceed, we can proceed. On the other hand, if you wish to stand it down, we can do that. If there is unanimity that we proceed, then we will proceed. Agreed?

Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Eakins moves that the following new section 15 be added to the bill and that sections 15 and 16 be renumbered 16 and 17:

"The minister shall in each year submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a report of the proceedings of the ministry during the next preceding fiscal year and such report shall be laid before the assembly forthwith, and if the Legislature is not at the time in session, then within 30 days after the commencement of the next session."

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the wording of the amendment, "The minister shall in each year submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a report of the proceedings of the ministry during the next preceding fiscal year and such report..." That is not the standard wording that is used in all statutory requirements of this nature. If the member will look at other acts where there are statutory requirements for the tabling of an annual report, they read thus:

"The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session, or if not, at the next ensuing session."

In the interests of uniformity, where there is a statutory requirement perhaps we should use that rather than varying from the norm. I think that is a much more orderly way of proceeding with it. It does have uniformity rather than the new verbiage that might be misconstrued as intending something else.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection except that that is the same wording as used by one of our other ministries. I believe the Ministry of Agriculture and Food uses the same wording as I have. I have no objection if it is clear.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly support that amendment. I think we all know what is intended here, that we are to submit an annual printed report. We are quite prepared to go along with that proposal.

Motion agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 16 and 17, as renumbered, agreed to.

Mr. Stokes: I just want to be sure, Mr. Chairman. There is in the bill a reference to the schedule. The ministry is responsible for the administration of this act, the acts set out in the schedule and the acts that are assigned by the Legislature or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and the schedule is at the end of the bill. I had indicated, both to the chair and to the minister, that I wanted to move an amendment to the schedule simply by adding to it the Parks Assistance Act.

12 noon

When the minister was giving us a rundown on his response to the various items raised by members on both sides of the House, he indicated he had undertaken to liaise with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the people responsible for the Parks Assistance Act in that ministry, along with the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario that is acting in an advisory capacity to this ministry.

I would like to move an amendment that the schedule be amended by adding thereto "Parks Assistance Act" for all the reasons I expressed on second reading and for the reasons that have been articulated by the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario. The minister has indicated he is not prepared to accept that amendment until he has had an opportunity to meet with and discuss this very issue with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and other concerned groups throughout the province, but I would like to move that amendment to the schedule with the permission of the chair. Does the chair have a copy of that?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Epp): I have a copy, yes.

Mr. Stokes moves that the schedule to the bill be amended by adding thereto "the Parks Assistance Act."

Any comments?

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon.

I endorse the amendment. I think there was quite a bit of discussion on second reading of the bill that the act should be included under the schedule with all the other acts mentioned: Community Recreation Centres Act, Historical Parks Act, Niagara Parks Act, Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, Ontario Place Corporation Act, St. Clair Parkway Commission Act, St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act and Tourism Act. If it is not included, there may be conflicting views in the future as to who is responsible for the parks system in Ontario. If we are going to look after recreation and parks, the amendment to include the Parks Assistance Act should be accepted.

In second reading I think the minister indicated that he wanted further consideration and discussion with other ministries. Members of the official opposition and the third party were trying to drive home the point that all parks now within the Ministry of Natural Resources should come under the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I think the Ministry of Natural Resources has two important areas to be concerned about, the forest industry in the province -- reforestation -- and the mining sector. The minister has his hands full with those. If we are establishing this new ministry, I suggest parks should come under its jurisdiction.

During second reading I suggested we should establish more parks commissions along the Great Lakes water system and waterways in Ontario and inland parks that involve local participation by dedicated citizens. That has been successful in the Niagara Parks system where persons are appointed, some by the regional municipality of Niagara, some by the county. I think it is a good, workable system, and I suggest the amendment put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon is a good, reasoned amendment and should be supported by all members of the House.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, in my experience the activities in those areas that have received assistance under the Parks Assistance Act would be natural ones to come under the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I appreciate the fact the minister has agreed to initiate meetings and discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and others with regard to looking into the full potential and background of the Parks Assistance Act and what it means to his ministry.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the provision of public funds under the Parks Assistance Act is quite different and distinct from the funds that are appropriated by the Ministry of Natural Resources for the establishment and maintenance of provincial parks in Ontario. The intent of the Parks Assistance Act is to assist municipalities in the establishment of parks within their jurisdiction and there is an upper limit in subsection 3(2) that:

"The assistance granted under subsection 1 in respect of any one park shall not exceed $100,000 or 50 per cent of the total cost of acquiring the land and developing the park or of converting a provincial or public park into an approved park, whichever is the lesser."

It is quite apart and distinct from the administration of provincial parks generally. Since this ministry is going to be involved in the delivery of all of the services and all of the programs, it is going to be community oriented. That is why I felt it made sense to carry on the uniformity in providing recreational facilities and tourist facilities through municipalities for the public generally.

The act even goes further than that and in subsection 1(2) says: "An elementary or a secondary school board having jurisdiction only in territory without municipal organization has the powers of the council of the municipality under this act, and the provisions of this act apply with necessary modifications to such a school board."

I mentioned the specific instance of the intended closure of Inwood Provincial Park, just outside of Upsala, west of Thunder Bay. It seemed to me that where the Ministry of Natural Resources in its wisdom felt that a particular park did not meet with the criteria now being worked into the ministry for the administration of parks throughout Ontario, they would turn it over to the private sector. They have done that in this particular instance over the past two or three years and it has not worked out.

I have had representations from a considerable number of people in that area who feel it is a beautiful little site. It is the only place in this unorganized territory where local residents can go. It attracts and generates a good deal of business for the small retail outlets in that area. If your ministry is going to get involved in that kind of thing, to promote tourism, to continue to provide recreational outlets for people all over the province, it just seems to me that if you took over control of the Parks Assistance Act you would be much more attuned to the needs, the wishes and the aspirations of people in the municipalities throughout Ontario generally, but in particular to the needs and aspirations of people in unorganized communities.

I think an Indian band could apply for assistance under this act, as could a school board in a place where there is no municipal legal entity other than the school board. It seems to me that it makes sense, given the aims, the objectives and the reason your ministry is being set up, to have the Parks Assistance Act added to this schedule. It is self-evident to me. It may not be self-evident to the people within your ministry but I think the evidence is overwhelming. I do not say everything in Ontario, as the minister suggested in reacting to comments made over here, but this seems to belong naturally. I would urge all honourable members to support the addition of the Parks Assistance Act to the schedule for the reasons I have mentioned.

12:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated in my remarks on second reading, we are fully aware that there are two definite schools of thought about where the Parks Assistance Act should be lodged. One hears strong argument made to include it in my ministry. Another argument is that it should remain with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I also said in my remarks that until such time as we had an opportunity to look at this question thoroughly, I would feel far more comfortable not taking this step at this time.

Our minds are not closed and the door is not shut forever. If, as a result of this ongoing debate and dialogue, it is apparent that the Parks Assistance Act should fall within my ministry's mandate, then we would propose it. I simply hope that we would not delay legislation here; that we would get the ministry established, get on with the job and do the many things that are on our doorstep. This would give us a chance to look at this specific and discrete piece of legislation first. If necessary, we could deal with this other piece of legislation at a later point.

I have already spoken to the Minister of Natural Resources. He is aware that we will be sitting down to discuss this point in more detail. For the moment our position is we want to get on with the legislation and come back to this other matter probably at a later date.

Just as a point of clarification to the member for Lake Nipigon about our reference to the Parks Assistance Act and whether or not it comes over to my ministry: We are not talking about the provincial parks. The provincial parks, it is commonly assumed, are going to stay where they are with Natural Resources. I do not want to leave anybody with the impression that maybe all of the provincial parks will some day come over. I do not think they should.

Mr. Stokes: That is why I thought that if you had read the Parks Assistance Act the evidence would have been overwhelming that you should have it in your ministry.

Motion negatived.

Bill 41, as amended, reported.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Consideration of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House I would appreciate the privilege of moving from my place in case I should require the assistance of the executive director and the director of the companies division.

Have the members received their copies of the statement?

While the statement is being distributed, I would like to thank all the members of the standing committee on administration of justice for the courtesies they showed me, being responsible for carrying it through committee. That was quite an unnerving experience for a new member and I must sincerely thank all members for the courtesy shown to me. I would also be remiss if I did not thank the bar association and the other groups that took so much time to assist the committee in its deliberations.

During the review of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act, by the administration of justice committee, commitments were made on behalf of the minister to come back to the committee of the whole House with respect to certain proposals, either with amendments or explanations for not amending. There are three such outstanding matters and I propose to deal with each in turn before referring to certain further amendments to the bill that I propose to move related to the national energy program.

The first relates to subsection 115(3) and the independence of directors of public offering corporations. In response to briefs to the committee recommending that subsection 115(3) be amended to exclude a company's legal counsel, investment counsellor, banker, consultants or retired officers, as well as officers or employees, from the board of directors of an offering corporation to assure greater independence, amendments were moved by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri). These were defeated.

In view of the concern, an undertaking was given on behalf of the minister to review subsection 115(3) with respect to independence of at least one third of the directors of an offering corporation. This was done and has been discussed with several members of the corporate bar in Toronto, unfortunately without a proposal being developed that would meet the needs of shareholders, management and the public.

As there is concern that the independence from management of outside directors of public offering corporations be bolstered by amendment of section 115, we intend to request the business law section of the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario branch, to study the question and to recommend an amendment within the year following enactment of the bill.

The second matter relates to section 131, directors' liability for employees' wages, and a new subsection 6, moved in committee by my honourable friend, the member for Riverdale. This gives employees preference in priority, for debts not exceeding six months' wages, to the rights of other creditors and shareholders.

During discussion, doubts were expressed as to whether the proposed amendment conflicted with the Bankruptcy Act of Canada and would be ultra vires in regard to the Legislature. Mr. Renwick withdrew his motion upon an undertaking on behalf of the minister to have it reviewed, and either a suitable amendment be introduced for debate by committee of the whole House or an explanation be given for not introducing it.

Representatives of the legal profession attended the sessions of the administration of justice committee and subsequently commented on Mr. Renwick's proposed amendment. One of them drew attention to section 14 of the Employment Standards Act which provides, "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act and except upon a distribution made by a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act (Canada), wages shall have priority to the claims or rights and be paid in priority to the claims or rights, including the claims or rights of the crown, of all preferred, ordinary or general creditors of the employer to the extent of $2,000 for each employee." He suggested that in light of section 14 of the Employment Standards Act the proposed amendment is not appropriate.

12:20 p.m.

The director, legal services, of the Ministry of Labour was asked to consider Mr. Renwick's proposed amendment. He advised: "The proposed subsection has nothing to do with the subject matter of section 131, which imposes liability for wages upon a director... I question whether such a priority with respect to wages should be given in an act addressing itself to business corporations and not employers generally ... The Employment Standards Act presently does confer priorities in respect of wages generally ... The proposed amendment does not alter what is presently found in the Employment Standards Act, section 14, except that there is no limit placed upon the amount, if under six months' wages, and it removes the present secured status given to vacation pay by section 15 or, at least, does not assist. I suggest, therefore, that the amendment should be rejected."

He commented further: "In connection with bankruptcy, the federal act is under revision and at the present time the wage protection issue is still under consideration by the federal government. The recent Landry report recommended sweeping changes with respect to wage protection."

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I will not be moving an amendment to section 131.

The third outstanding matter relates to amendments requested by the Toronto Stock Exchange in its submission to the committee to assist corporate members of the exchange to go public. In addition to the amendment of clause 42(2)(c) and other amendments enabling an Ontario corporate registrant under the Securities Act to impose restrictions on the issue, transfer or ownership of shares for the purposes described in clause 42(2)(c), the solicitors for the exchange requested the same enforcement and policing powers as proposed for energy resource corporations in connection with the national energy program.

As he had undertaken to the committee to do, Benson Howard, QC, executive director of the company's division, reviewed these proposed amendments with Henry Knowles, QC, chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission. They subsequently met with the solicitors for the Toronto Stock Exchange. During these meetings they learned that the exchange wanted other new and substantive amendments. These would permit mandatory repurchase or redemption of restricted shares held in excess of permitted shareholdings, and provide a procedure governing payment of proceeds and an application by a dissatisfied shareholder to the court to fix a fair value for his shares.

Such changes require further review and policy approval before we can proceed with amendments. To allow time for policy review we are deferring these additional amendments requested by the Toronto Stock Exchange until the fall session. In the meantime, corporate members of the exchange intending to go public will have the benefit of clause 42(2)(c) and related consequential amendments under the bill as amended in committee.

The bill was amended in committee to enable energy resource corporations to be formed in Ontario with restrictions on the issue, transfer or ownership of shares of any class or series, and to enable existing publicly owned energy resource corporations to amend their articles to impose such restrictions or to issue new restricted shares to attain or to maintain a specified level of Canadian ownership or control to qualify for benefits under the national energy program of Canada.

The amendments, apart from describing shares as restricted and not as constrained, were substantially identical with those proposed to be made in the Canada Business Corporations Act for the same purpose under the Energy Security Act proposed by the federal government.

When Bill C-94, the Energy Security Act, 1981, was introduced by the federal government for first reading on February 26, it differed from the draft on which our motions in committee to amend the bill had been based. Again, when amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act were introduced in Bill C-105 by the federal government on April 7, changes had been made in response to concerns of the investment community on behalf of existing foreign investors.

To keep the amendments to Bill 6 related to the national energy program uniform with amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act for the same purpose, I will be moving five amendments, one of which is of a housekeeping nature. Those amendments are to clauses 29, 42, 45, 184 and 271, which have been previously circulated to the members opposite.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I will refer briefly to the four themes the parliamentary assistant has discussed in his opening statement.

The bill before us was substantially changed during the committee hearings as a result of a variety of amendments that were brought forward not only by the ministry itself but also by the opposition parties.

With regard to the three outstanding matters to which the parliamentary assistant referred, I am interested in the amendment to section 115, to which the parliamentary assistant is prepared to seek appropriate amendments within a year. I would hope, as we look to the commitment he has made under his third item, that we might expect to have it somewhat earlier than that.

I note from the comments he has made with respect to the go-public theme in clause 42 that he expects to have some changes before the House in the fall session. If at all possible, I would also encourage the parliamentary assistant to see whether consideration of section 115 could be with us by then, because I think it would be opportune to have this bill entirely amended and as up to date as possible before we complete the fall session of the Legislature.

With respect to section 131 and the liability for six months' wages, I must admit I am disappointed that there could not be something in this legislation to show the concern of the Legislature, particularly for the wages of employees who suffer from the failure of a corporation. Although the Bankruptcy Act is available, I believe it would be worthwhile to consider this matter further so that we are able, as best we can, to give whatever protection is possible to wages for employees in circumstances such as this.

The parliamentary assistant suggested in his statement that, because of the Employment Standards Act and the provisions of bankruptcy law, this theme may not be entirely appropriate for the Legislature at this time. However, I for one am not always so anxious to wait for the federal government to deal with matters, such as the Landry report has suggested to it with respect to changes under the bankruptcy law.

Certainly the pressures on these themes of bankruptcy and the protection of wages for employees are a most particular and important theme which must concern us all. Whether they will have the priority on the federal scene that some of us might prefer is beyond our responsibility here, but I do think we have an important responsibility to make sure we give as much priority and assistance as we can under Ontario law to protecting the wages of employees.

Under this theme of going public, which I referred to earlier, I note that not only are amendments being sought in that area but also other substantial ones are being sought, particularly by the Ontario Securities Commission, and they will be with us in the fall session. If that is attended to before the end of this calendar year, we will have seen some satisfactory progress. I look forward to seeing those amendments and discussing them this fall in the standing committee on administration of justice.

With respect to the proposed amendments concerning the energy resource corporations, the parliamentary assistant has favoured us with copies of those amendments, and I believe they can be discussed in detail as explanations are made for them in the committee procedure that will follow these opening comments.

With respect to uniform legislation and making sure we have consistency representing our approach to the changes that have now been made to the Canada Business Corporations Act in Bill C-105 and the Energy Security Act in Bill C-94, I believe these amendments must be consistent, and we will certainly support them.

12:3O p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to respond to the parliamentary assistant's statement. I will deal with those points when we come to the particular clauses to which reference was made during his statement.

My friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is always more gracious on these matters than I could ever be. In fact, in the committee we accomplished nothing by way of amendment of any significance other than the entirely new matter which was not before the assembly at the time the bill was read the second time, namely, the amendments necessary to make provision for the Canadianization of companies to obtain the benefits under the national energy program.

I want to emphasize to the committee of the whole House that unless the process with respect to specialized bills such as the Business Corporations Act, the Securities Act and related legislation is revised, we are simply a rubber stamp.

The answers we got in committee consistently were twofold. First, "We are tracking the Canada Business Corporations Act and therefore any amendments are out of order and improper." Second, "In any event, this bill has been discussed with the industry over a period of time, and there are so many business interests with whom we have settled these clauses that for you mere mortals as members of the assembly to intrude on the bill would be a work of supererogation."

That process is wrong. I have said it on many occasions. One can tell from the course of the remarks implicit in the statement made by the parliamentary assistant today that this continues to be the case. There was no opportunity for intelligent exchange on matters of concern. Every single amendment that was proposed which would have been a beneficial amendment was turned down. The amendments that were passed were amendments that a Tory government would never have introduced a few years ago, namely, amendments to provide for the Canadianization of business corporations in Canada and to expropriate -- which is the term they used some years ago when we suggested the Canadianization of companies -- to expropriate the interests of people who do not comply with those provisions.

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of efficiency, I want to send you a note of the sections of the bill on which I intend to comment. I will not be moving any amendments. The reason is obvious; I am not going to go through the farce of moving amendments, calling in the members and having them all consistently voted down. But I intend to make comments on a number of sections and for your convenience, Mr. Chairman, I have listed them; perhaps that will be of assistance to the chair in knowing which sections I am anxious to comment on.

The Acting Chairman: Thank you. The first indication I had of an amendment prior to this was to section 29. I now have information from the member for Riverdale that he wishes to make comment on sections 5 and 15 and then section 29.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I put section 5 on the list simply because it is the first place in this bill where an amendment was passed in the committee dealing with the national energy program. It provides that if the issue, transfer or ownership of shares of the corporation is to be restricted, a statement to that effect and a statement as to the nature of the restriction must be contained in the articles of incorporation.

I do not intend to speak to the national energy program on this clause of the bill; it is sufficient to say that the significant amendments are in sections 5, 19, 42, 45, 167 and 169. My remarks will be restrained to section 45, but at that time I will comment also on sections 19 and 42.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is an important matter, and I have to deal with it in this section. Section 15 states, "A corporation has the capacity and the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person." It is interesting that the Corporations Act, as distinct from the Business Corporations Act, has not quite as succinct a section as that but one somewhat similar in section 274. I am not going to read it, but its substance is that a corporation has the capacity of a natural person and so on.

This compact section, section 15, proposes that we continue the total elimination from the statute of any reference to the powers of corporations which hold and own land, and the extended degree of the ownership and control of land by corporations.

On the Order Paper we have Bills 3 and 4, dealing with the Charities Accounting Act and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, which will repeal the traditionally effective process by which corporations could own interests in land. I do not intend this particular bill to go into those details. It is sufficient to say that when we pass this statute in the form in which it presently exists and when we pass the repeal of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, there will be absolutely no monitoring process of any kind in effect in the province with respect to the ownership of land by corporations.

I want to point out to the assembly that this is a very important matter. For many years, when the Corporations Act -- again, as distinct from the Business Corporations Act -- was the act that governed all the corporations, including business corporations, we had in the statutes of the province provisions such as this: "A corporation has power to acquire ... and hold land for its actual use and occupation, and for carrying on its undertaking, and when no longer so necessary to sell, alienate and convey the same."

Then we had a further provision: "No corporation and no trustee ... shall acquire any land not necessary for the actual use and occupation of the corporation, or for carrying on its undertaking, and not held by way of security for more than seven years."

Then there was provision for extensions, and there was provision for the disposition of the land at that time.

In addition, there was a requirement: "A corporation shall give to the minister when required a full and correct statement of all land or interest therein, at the date of such statement held by, or in trust for, the corporation."

My point is that whether it was used in the way in which it was intended, or whether it fell into disuse, there was the conception within the Corporations Act that there would be a monitoring of, and an effective control upon, the extent and degree of the ownership by corporations of land not necessary for their actual use and operation, and not necessary for the carrying on of their undertakings. That was abolished in the preceding Business Corporations Act, except that the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, for whatever it was worth, still constrained that degree and extent of corporate ownership of land.

We are going to be asked to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act. At present, our caucus indicates that we will likely support the amendment to repeal -- not the principle, but the amendment -- only on the grounds that it is anachronistic and out of date. But I want to say that when the government introduces this kind of legislation, we are always faced with a very serious problem, because when the government receives a report dealing with the ownership of land by corporations, it picks and chooses what it wants to do with it.

We are being faced, in Bills 3 and 4, with the implementation of only one or two of the recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in the report on the mortmain and charitable uses and religious institutions laws. We are getting it piecemeal. We are not getting the kind of collection of amendments which the report envisaged and which for reasons known only to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) he has decided to do simply in pieces.

12:40 p.m.

However, I want to refer to page 23 of the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission with respect to the specific question I am raising about this ownership of land by corporations, which very shortly no longer will be effective in any way. This relates to this succinct statement that a corporation, incorporeal as it is, will have all of the rights and duties and positions of an actual person. It is an imaginative concept that only one of the poetic imagination of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), could possibly envisage.

I just want to say that in its report the law reform commission specifically states: "Consideration should be given to the enactment of an amendment to the Business Corporations Act, similar to section 307 of the Corporations Act, requiring the sale of land within seven years after it is no longer required for the actual use of a corporation or for carrying on its undertaking."

I want that matter to be considered by the ministry. I am quite content to have the parliamentary assistant deal with this bill. However, I was anxious that the minister would be in attendance so he could focus his attention on the serious problems that are involved if we give a carte blanche to corporations to own, control and acquire whatever land and whatever interests in land, however extensive, in this province with no method of monitoring the degree and extent of that control. That is a serious problem even for a Conservative government.

The minister must well know that through the registry offices there is no known method of collecting, in any efficient way, knowledge of the extent and degree of land ownership by any particular corporation, let alone any group of corporations or any network of masked and hidden ownership of land. I say to the government that they do it at their peril to the public interest in the Business Corporations Act.

It is a matter of immense importance and significance to this party. It was a matter of immense and considerable concern to the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism of this assembly. I want to let the parliamentary assistant know that the New Democratic Party stands continuously for some method of monitoring, assessing, and if necessary controlling, the ownership of lands by corporations. One of the first steps is to have an efficient method by which one can find out what land is owned by corporations before one can make some decision as to whether one wishes to control the ownership of land in some way.

We have a farce in Ontario with respect to the steps taken by the government in relation to corporate ownership of farm property and nonresident ownership. It is going to be even worse if the concerns which we express are not dealt with in due course in legislation.

I want the parliamentary assistant, the House and anyone else who is interested to know that last February the convention of the New Democratic Party passed this particular resolution, which basically related to the farm community but which also dealt with absentee land ownership. The resolution states:

"Whereas absentee and nonfarm corporate purchasing of Ontario farm land is having a serious and undesirable impact on local communities now; and whereas such a change has disastrous implications regarding the controls of our food land resources in the food production sector of our economy; and whereas we are now well aware of the problems created by absentee control of other sectors of our economy:

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Party press for immediate restrictions being placed to prevent absentee and nonfarm corporate ownership of Ontario farm land; and further be it resolved that a time limit be imposed during which current absentee and nonfarm corporate owners must divest themselves of their Ontario farm land holdings."

That is one aspect which has been up front and centre for all the parties in the assembly over a period of time, but we are dismantling and destroying the only rudimentary process we had for monitoring corporate ownership of land, be it foreign, absentee or other.

I want someone to understand that this erudite report about the esoteric questions of the mortmain law should not allow us to forget what the mortmain law said. It said that corporations cannot hold land except under strict terms and conditions because it will be, if you will forgive the vernacular translation, "in the dead hand." That is what it meant. In other words, it would always be there.

A vital part of the wealth of the country could be tied up indefinitely in corporations which, as distinct from natural persons, do not have a prophetic biblical period for their lives but which can go on and on forever and forever, as many of them have done in relative terms. To me, this is an essential problem that has to be dealt with. It has to be dealt with apart from mortmain and apart from the corporation law, but it has to be dealt with.

It was interesting to note that this report dealt with all the aspects of policy that needed consideration if we were to go about repealing these obsolete laws. It dealt with the constitutional questions of absentee ownership of land, with the question of restrictions on the ownership of land and with the need for a review of policies with respect to the ownership of land.

What are we getting from the government? It is as if the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has washed its hands and entrusted this difficult question to the most inappropriate ministry of the government to deal with it, the Ministry of the Attorney General.

It is a matter of immense public concern. I am not projecting my particular views on the topic, although I feel strongly about it; nor am I simply projecting the views of the caucus on behalf of which I stand here to speak this morning on that question.

The ownership of the vital resource of land in the province by corporate bodies, masked or otherwise, or groups of corporate bodies, is one that has to have an effective monitoring system. In farm land it is self-evident. In development corporations it is self-evident. In mining and other natural resource companies it is self-evident. The Tory government is engaged in deliberately, and I could say almost covertly, destroying what rudimentary system was in existence.

I have gone on at some length. In a less intransigent House, I would have moved an amendment to give effect to a consideration of that problem, but I know very well it would be useless. I would be told immediately that it was unwise, that it was inappropriate, that there had been discussions about this question, that there would be an undertaking the government would consider it in the future, that it would be very disruptive at present to deal with it and that therefore I, the member for Riverdale, speaking on behalf of my caucus, should not intrude that kind of question on the assembly.

Out of deference to this assembly, and not out of deference to the ministry or its advisers, I am not moving an amendment. I have made the point I want to make. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to make certain that somehow or other the procedures of this House on bills of this kind be dealt with in a way in which we can have a meaningful and intelligent debate.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

12:50 p.m.

On section 29:

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I have is that the words "in the capacity of a legal representative" in the first, second, third and fourth lines of the subsection have been struck out to eliminate unnecessary repetition.

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Mitchell moves that subsection 29(8) of the bill, excluding the clauses, be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:

"(8) A corporation holding shares in itself or in its holding body corporate or a subsidiary body corporate of a corporation holding shares of the corporation shall not vote or permit those shares to be voted unless the corporation or subsidiary body corporate, as the case may be."

Motion agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 30 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 42:

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, subsection 42(3) is a new proposed amendment to follow a similar proposed amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act related to the national energy program. It excepts from the application of clause 2(d) existing shares that are unrestricted; or, put another way, it limits the application of clause 2(d) to new, unissued shares.

The former subsection 42(3) was an amendment proposed by the administration of justice committee on the basis of a proposed amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act under the proposed Energy Security Act. When that bill was given first reading in the House of Commons on February 26 the section had been further amended. Our amendment, renumbered subsection 42(4), is to conform for uniformity. The subsection authorizes a corporation to limit the number of shares that may be owned by persons whose ownership would adversely affect the level of Canadian ownership or control of the corporation.

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Mitchell moves that subsection 42(3) of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:

"(3) Nothing in clause 2(d) authorizes a corporation to impose restrictions on the issue, transfer or ownership of shares of any class or series of which any shares are outstanding unless the shares are already subject to restrictions described in clause 2(d).

"(4) A corporation may (a) limit the number of its shares that may be owned or (b) prohibit the ownership of shares by any person whose ownership would adversely affect the ability of the corporation or any of its affiliates or associates to attain or maintain a level of Canadian ownership or control specified in its articles that equals or exceeds a specified level referred to in clause 2(d)."

Motion agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.

On section 45:

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Mitchell moves that subsection 45(1) of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:

"45(1) A corporation that has restrictions on the issue, transfer or ownership of its shares of any class or series in order to assist the corporation or any of its affiliates or associates to qualify under any prescribed act of Canada or a province or ordinance of a territory to receive licences, permits, grants, payments or other benefits by reason of attaining or maintaining a specified level of Canadian ownership or control may for that purpose or for the purpose of attaining or maintaining a level of Canadian ownership or control specified in its articles, as may be prescribed, sell, as if it were the owner thereof, any of the restricted shares that are owned, or that the directors determine in such manner as may be prescribed may be owned, contrary to the restrictions."

Mr. Mitchell: The only comment is, rather than the directors in good faith determining shares that may be owned "contrary to the restrictions," the manner in which the directors may make the determination is to be "prescribed in the regulations." This amendment is prompted by the proposed amendment to the same subsection in the Canada Business Corporations Act in Bill C-105.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the section of the bill dealing with the national energy program. As it would perhaps be one o'clock by the time committee reported, sir, with your indulgence, we could cease at this point.

The Acting Chairman: With the amendment on the floor, that is where we will pick up on this bill in committee of the whole when it is next called.

On motion by Mr. Robinson, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments and progress on a second bill.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

April 30, 1982