Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jun-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know it is normally not done, but I hope you will understand and acquiesce in my asking the members of the House to welcome, with me, the students from the smallest school in Ontario, which is in Oba. All three students are here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, certain measures relating to the taxation of prepared foods and transient accommodation announced by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in his budget of May 13, 1982, are scheduled to take effect on Monday, June 14, 1982.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Blue Monday.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No. It has been blue for days listening to the rhetoric coming out of my honourable friend.

At this point, I would like to explain how these measures will be applied to summer camps operated, and meals sold by, religious, charitable and benevolent organizations.

Prepared meals: Previously, meals sold by these organizations were generally exempt from retail sales tax both because of an exemption for occasional events involving total taxable sales up to $50,000 and because the price of the meals did not exceed the $6 threshold.

While the new budget measures now involve the taxation of all meals regardless of price, my ministry will be producing regulations to ensure that the tax exemptions traditionally enjoyed by these organizations will continue in recognition of their important social and community services.

Mr. Foulds: That particular case is pretty good, isn't it?

Mr. T. P. Reid: What about all the rest of it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The opposition members have not scored a thing, as usual. This is a government, with feeling and heart, that develops regulations that are needed.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Confession is good for the soul.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You don't know what I'm going to say yet.

Mr. McClellan: I think we can guess.

Mr. Foulds: Mea culpa, mea culpa.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the honourable members would listen, I think we might accomplish something.

The new regulations under the Retail Sales Tax Act will reflect the following.

No tax will be payable on the purchase or sale of prepared food bought or sold by such organizations for up to and including four occasional events per year.

The $50,000 taxable sales limit for the four events will be raised to $75,000.

Tax will still have to be paid on taxable items, other than prepared food, that an organization buys for sale at any of the four events.

The exemption will not apply to an organization holding regularly scheduled weekly or monthly events.

The exemption will not apply to prepared food where the organization is catering, such as weddings, club dinners, etc.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now you're even taxing weddings. You're taxing motherhood.

An hon. member: Is this a wedding tax?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the honourable members opposite do not want to go along the right track today and, in fact, are not listening.

The exemption will not apply when the organization is selling prepared food in direct competition with commercial food operators on the same site, as they do at fairs and exhibitions, for example.

Accommodation at summer camps: Similarly, I wish to inform members that the new budget tax provision on accommodation and prepared food will not apply to summer camps operated by religious, charitable or benevolent organizations --

Mr. Ruston: The opposition is starting to win. Start again.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the Albany Club operate summer camps?

Mr. Foulds: This is known as the AM-FM budget: Allan MacEachen, Frank Miller -- AM-FM.

Mr. Nixon: Does the minister want to read that again?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I had better read it again, because the sentence was not finished with all of the kerfuffle over there. I will start that paragraph, at least, at the beginning.

In closing, the honourable members should note that these changes give recognition to the very special nature of the operations of religious, charitable and benevolent organizations whose role is so important to our society.

In line with established practice, my ministry will be issuing a detailed tax guide following publication of the enabling regulations. In the meantime, we are today issuing a circular to further explain these measures. This information circular is being mailed to the affected organizations as well as to members of this House and their constituency offices to assist them in dealing with any inquiries they may receive.

IMMUNIZATION OF SCHOOL PUPILS BILL

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, later today we will take another major step in the area of preventive medicine. After question period, I will introduce legislation to protect our school children and their families from the spread of dangerous diseases.

We intend to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, measles, rubella (or German measles), diphtheria, tetanus, polio and mumps. These all can be controlled safely through immunization.

Under the legislation, all Ontario pupils must provide proof of immunization or acquire the necessary immunization. There are exceptions to this provision on medical grounds or because of the religious beliefs of the parents.

The legislation will come into effect in September of this year. While there will not be total coverage of the program by September, we expect that the immunization of school children will be well established within the first few months of the program.

The members will appreciate that the first priority of our program must be towards the youngest and most vulnerable students entering school for the first time. But, immediately after, the immunization program will be directed to the balance of the students.

10:10 a.m.

The legislation authorizes the medical officer of health to order the suspension from school of any pupil who is not in the process of being immunized and who is not exempt. In addition, during an outbreak or threatened outbreak of any of the designated diseases, the medical officer of health may order the exclusion of any pupil who has not been completely immunized and is not exempt because of natural immunity.

Indeed, we are asking the MOHs to make sure that all the students in the school system are immunized as soon as is humanly possible and, as they are in the position to judge best the conditions in their own communities, they can exercise the necessary discretion in any enforcement question.

This initiative is a logical next step in the continuing efforts of the public health system to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. This past Tuesday I introduced the Health Protection Act, which will strengthen the responsibility of the medical officers of health to ensure that greater levels of immunization are achieved in the community and that each health unit provides immunization services and information through regular clinics and links with family doctors.

It is a tribute to the efforts of the past that an estimated 80 per cent of Ontario's children now are immunized through the voluntary system in use for so many years.

None the less, the six diseases in question struck 11,135 residents of all ages of Ontario in 1980. By far the highest incidence was of measles, the highest in a decade. Even though, during that one year, we distributed nearly half a million doses of vaccine against measles, there were 8,253 cases of measles reported throughout the province. In 1978, there were only 2,828 cases.

Despite the fact that measles outbreaks occur about every three to five years, this dramatic increase in the incidence of measles has shown that we cannot contain the disease with existing immunization programs based only on advocacy, advertising and promotion.

A society like ours, which cares about the continued health of its families and the protection of its children, cannot tolerate outbreaks of these six diseases, particularly when we have proven, safe and effective vaccines against them.

I might point out that measles, where we expect to make the most substantial impact, is not harmless, but a potential crippler which can cause brain damage, retardation and sometimes death.

The United States has a universal immunization program against measles: in 1980, the incidence of that disease in the United States was 15 times lower than in Ontario. There can be no more solid proof of such a program's validity.

An immunization program of this kind has been recommended by such knowledgeable and concerned groups as the Canadian Paediatric Society, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Provincial Advisory Committee on Immunization Procedures, the Society of Medical Officers of Health in Ontario and the Association of Ontario Boards of Health.

Officials of my ministry, along with officials of the Ministry of Education, have been meeting regularly on this matter, and my colleague the Minister of Education, if she is here later this morning, will second the introduction of this bill, which she has so strongly advocated.

As Minister of Health, I believe the people of this province, and particularly the parents of Ontario, will support the concern and the common sense behind this step towards better public health and protection. I am convinced that within a few short years a universal immunization program will spell the disappearance of these diseases among our children.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have a complaint. If the Minister of Education is not here and not able to second the bill, I think it would be appropriate that it be seconded by the person who originally introduced the private members' bill on immunization last year, the member for London North (Mr. Van Home). He will be here.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Ms. Copps: You've got to give him some credit, though; let's face it.

Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order.

SANYO MACHINE WORKS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement about the establishment of a Japanese plant in southwestern Ontario. It is a great pleasure for me to announce to the Legislature today that Sanyo Machine Works Ltd. of Japan has decided to locate its first overseas plant in the west-central Ontario town of Elmira.

Sanyo has purchased a 20,000-square-foot plant on Industrial Drive in Elmira which it will use initially to service equipment manufactured in its Japanese plants and sold in the North American market. It is also the company's intention to establish design facilities at the Elmira plant within two years and to start assembling equipment built from parts manufactured both in Japan and by subcontractors here in Ontario.

Sanyo has three plants in Japan producing automatic assembly machines, precise measuring and inspection machines, automatic welding machines and press-line automatic equipment for customers in several industries. Until now, it has had no other plants anywhere else in the world.

It would be appropriate for me to acknowledge the role played by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), who was instrumental in this important decision by Sanyo. In fact, he met with officials of the company in Tokyo last October, and it can be said he landed the deal.

The significance of this move by a major Japanese industrial concern cannot be stressed too strongly. As both the Premier and I have been saying, repeatedly, the level of imports generally from Japan is too high and we consider it imperative for the Japanese to invest more in plants here or to increase their Canadian sourcing of parts for manufactured goods sold here. Thus, we hope this decision by Sanyo is the beginning of a trend of recognition by the Japanese of our really serious concerns about achieving a more equitable trade balance.

There is another important way to view Sanyo's decision, and that is as a vote of confidence in this province as a place to invest and do business. The reason that Sanyo chose Ontario for its first overseas expansion is that it wanted to be at the geographic and industrial heart of North America and as close as possible to the major markets of the United States. Ontario, in addition to having a large domestic market for consumer goods, is within a day's drive of three quarters of the continental United States and a potential 106 million consumers. Sanyo also finds Ontario politically and economically stable and with a large, well-trained work force. No small part of the credit for alerting Sanyo to these virtues of Ontario is due to officials of my ministry, both here and in Japan, who have been encouraging and assisting the company over several years.

While initial employment at the Elmira plant will be quite small, starting with nine employees, it is the company's intention --

Mr. Foulds: How many? Nine whole jobs? Wow!

Mr. T. P. Reid: We'll take them in Rainy River district. We'll have them.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party may not consider those jobs important to Elmira, but Elmira does.

It is the company's intention to expand quickly within three years to about 26 employees, of whom 20 will be engineers. Indeed, the company has already moved forward in this regard and has employed an engineer from Waterloo, who is currently being trained by the company in Japan.

However, the main benefit of Sanyo's presence lies not in immediate jobs created but in the employment it will provide to other industries as the company moves into subcontracting in Ontario for component supplies. My ministry estimates that each job in a new plant subcontracting in this manner will support 15 other people in the community.

Elmira is ideal for the company because of the availability of an existing building and its proximity to the University of Waterloo, an acknowledged centre of expertise in research, engineering and computer science. As well, it is close to the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology centre, which my ministry is setting up in Cambridge with funding from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

Sanyo joins a growing list of Japanese businesses which have chosen Ontario for their Canadian headquarters. Many, like Sanyo, started out as distribution centres but have gone on to expand and provide hundreds of jobs in our work force.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It does indeed illustrate the sorry state of the manufacturing sector when the Ministry of Industry and Trade makes a ministerial statement for nine jobs --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will resume his seat, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on that same point --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. You are out of order.

Mr. Peterson: It is my understanding --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of privilege.

Mr. Peterson: There must be a point somewhere.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is not. You are out of order.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro announced earlier this morning that General Public Utilities is seeking permission from its state utilities board to cancel its participation with Ontario Hydro in the proposed electricity export and Lake Erie cable project.

The reasons given by GPU for the termination of this project arise from its financial and market situation. It has indicated that the financing of the project at the previous cost estimate was going to be difficult in the current economic circumstances. I am advised that when the bids for installing the cable in the lake came in significantly higher than expected, GPU informed the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities of this situation and yesterday filed material with that board recommending that the project be terminated.

The increased interconnection capability of the proposed Lake Erie cable would have enhanced the overall security of the bulk power system in Ontario and, of course, the additional revenue from this sale would have made a significant contribution to the economy of Ontario and to Canada's balance of payments situation. The loss of this sale would indicate that obtaining new electricity export markets will not be easy and that Ontario Hydro is facing greater competition from US and other Canadian utilities.

The government, however, remains committed to encouraging Ontario Hydro to seek expanded export sales and new export markets. I will be reviewing with Ontario Hydro its export strategy to ensure that all opportunities for such sales are being pursued.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If I could just have your indulgence for a second, I want to report that 68 members of the Legislature have endorsed the concept of a world referendum on disarmament and 76 members of the Legislature have endorsed the resolution reflecting deep concern at the implications for mankind of the escalation of nuclear arms. On behalf of my colleagues the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), I would like to thank all those members of the Legislature who made their statements.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Revenue. I note with a little bit of joy his backing off in the new regulations he has attempted to bring in today, obviously at the behest of opposition pressure. However, in looking at these, without seeing the details, it is my view that they are still chintzy and mean-spirited.

He is still going to force a lot of charitable organizations into being constant bookkeepers. They are going to have four events a year as opposed to five or six. He is still regulating them in a great number of ways. He is backing off with respect to summer camps operated by religious, charitable or benevolent organizations as long as they are not in direct competition with commercial camps, whatever that means.

I ask the minister: Because even these changes are going to cause him so many problems, does he not feel that he should just back off completely and go back to the way it was, which was sensible and which everyone could understand?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, the statement I made this morning had nothing to do with the dribble and drabble we have been hearing from the other side for the past week or two, particularly from the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) for seven-plus hours.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Seven hours of whipped air.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Seven and a half hours.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am glad the members of the Liberal Party agree with my statement in that regard.

This morning, I did what is not uncommon following a budget, following some change in the taxing areas, in the way of clarification, of regulations being drawn to make things workable, reasonable and responsible as this government always does. In effect, that is exactly what that statement did this morning. It is not a backing down; it is not a change. It is a clarification based on the kinds of regulations we had in effect before.

Yes, we have expanded the maximum limit from $50,000 to $75,000. The reason for this is that now there is no threshold in the food component of what might be incorporated in a sale, etc. That has been changed and raised, it is true. The rest is in the form of clarification.

I think it is reasonable. I think it is responsible. It does allow organizations, whether they be charitable organizations or something similar, such as service clubs, to have fund-raising events on an intermittent basis and know that they are not going to be taxable unless they are in direct competition in the marketplace, such as at fairgrounds and so on. I think that is reasonable, and I think that is responsible on the part of this government and this ministry.

Mr. Peterson: Let me give the minister some advice. He is going to get into so many definitional problems on direct competition; he does not even know what he is talking about.

Will the minister not agree with me that he has had an opportunity to hear some of the public reaction, now that other people are coming to him, such as the mobile caterers whom he is forcing to install tills in their trucks? These are small entrepreneurs. A number of them own just one truck and make the sandwiches in the morning to sell during the day. He is forcing all these people to become bookkeepers.

Now that the minister has started to get some understanding of what he has done to the system, will he not agree that he could have far more intelligent regulations than these? Believe me, he will be backing off a lot more over the next few months. Would it not be a better idea to hear all of these people through a select committee where they could come and make their representations? Then he could do it intelligently all in one shot.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The answer to that is very simple. The answer is no.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to clarify a point here. The Leader of the Opposition keeps speaking about referring the matter to a committee. We have said that is not the normal way. The standing rules of this House permit him or his party, at the end of the debate, to refer the matter to committee. He knows that.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that we can take this bill to committee, and we intend to do that, but we know the Treasurer will use his majority to muzzle that committee, as the government does on every other committee. We want to hear outside witnesses. We want to hear people who are affected by the tax.

All the government has to do is say, in this House, that this is a reasonable thing to do, that we will sit this summer and that we will listen to people affected. We can all try, on a nonpartisan basis, to redraft the regulations under the bills. That is all we are saying. It is reasonable. The more he hears, the more he will change his mind. This Treasurer is in a lot of trouble. We are trying to help him out.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make precisely the same point. It is all very well for the Treasurer to stand up and say that standing order 33 gives us the leeway to refer reports or matters out for hearings. It would be nice and helpful, though, if the Treasurer would give us an uncategorical commitment that he would permit the hearings to actually take place and that he would not have his trained seals vote to stifle the matter, as they so often do.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member has the wrong number. I think it is standing order 56(c). I thought he knew the House rules. If he is going to throw numbers around, why does he not get the right one?

Mr. McClellan: Sorry.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Second, if a government wins an election, it has majorities on committees. That is what government is all about.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, we all know, and so does the public of Ontario, what a Tory majority means for the taxes in this province.

How will the Minister of Revenue define direct competition when he is talking about camps? Will it be related to distance between camps? How will he determine that they are in direct competition? One could have a number of camps in an area, one run by a benevolent organization and another as a private operation. How will he determine when they are in direct competition?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the main point of interpretation will be -- I will read from my statement again:

"Similarly, I wish to inform members that the new budget tax provision on accommodation and prepared food will not apply to summer camps operated by religious, charitable or benevolent organizations for disadvantaged people…" The last three words are the key words within that phrase. Then it goes on to say, "and which are not in direct competition with commercial camps."

The reason for that is there are, in some instances, summer camps operated by an organization or institution that may fall into the category of being charitable, benevolent or religious institutions, but that particular part of their operation, the summer camp, may have nothing to do directly with providing a service to people who are disadvantaged, who need some assistance, below the market rate. That is why that is in there.

It will be decided -- wrongly, as seen by members opposite, but rightly, in my view -- by interpretation of individual situations or circumstances. I do not mean by the case of one person but by the nature of the particular operation. I think that is a responsible way of looking at it. We have to be fair to the marketplace, and yet still recognize the valid and very important service sometimes provided within those camps for the disadvantaged.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, or perhaps clarification would be better: I wonder if the minister intends to include the Orange Lodge as a benevolent or religious institution.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not realize what a silly process he is getting involved in? Does he not realize that some camps that charge a commercial rate for children also sponsor other children by way of bursaries and do cater to the so-called economically disadvantaged? Does he not realize what a hornet's nest or can of worms he is getting into in trying to justify the position the Treasurer brought us on May 13? Does he not realize that on Monday he will start a whole new series of taxes for which, to the best of my knowledge, the regulations are not yet available? What are the taxpayers of the province supposed to do on Monday? When will we get the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We have already issued regulations on the same night as the budget, as I indicated in my statement today. We will be sending to the honourable members further clarification of these issues. We have a head office component, needless to say, of the retail sales tax branch. We have 12 district offices throughout the province. There is no great inaccessibility of clarification or information for the retailers who may still have questions.

Yes, we have had lots of questions in the past month. That is why many of these things were quite rightly given a one-month postponement before implementation day. I think, contrary to the views of the leader of the official opposition, that most of the people in the marketplace are reasonable and responsible, and have made a point of finding out and getting questions answered for them.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Where did he go? He was right in front of my eyes. Poof, he disappeared.

Mr. Bradley: This is an important question. He is on his way. There he is.

Mr. Peterson: In the statement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) today, with respect to the cancellation of the General Public Utilities' cable, I note that Ontario Hydro will be pursuing further export contracts.

Could the Minister of the Environment give this House his commitment that, when that happens in future, he will make sure the environmental interests of this province are strongly represented, that he will involve himself from the beginning and make sure there is an open environmental hearing for any future contracts Hydro may take on with respect to exports? Why does the minister not now pledge to involve himself at the beginning of those discussions so he is not embarrassed in future the way he has been in the past?

Hon Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whatever caused the Leader of the Opposition to think I was embarrassed. I have not been embarrassed throughout this process. I can assure the member my reaction to the announcement this morning is that it is really unfortunate at this time in the history of our country.

I think the transaction would have been of great benefit to Canada and Ontario. I know it would have been done with all the appropriate and necessary environmental protections in place. I am confident of that and I have been involved from close to the beginning, certainly from the time I came to this ministry. I realize the discussions about this predated that somewhat, but I have been involved from the beginning.

I am confident the environmental considerations as they relate to Ontario and Canada were being taken into consideration fully. I would not hesitate to say to the member that in the future, if such undertakings are to be considered as I suspect they would be, either my successor or I would be involved again and would continue to play a significant role in the protection of the environment as it relates to any such undertaking.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may have been involved but it was not a very important role. That has been the whole point of this exercise.

What we are asking is that the next time a contract is looked into, as well as looking at the economic benefit -- and nobody is suggesting there would not have been an economic benefit -- he makes sure that the question of the economic liability through increased acid rain is looked into. The minister must make sure that he speaks for this province with respect to those interests. Why does he not make that pledge now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: At some point the member has to come to grips with the fact that he has been labouring under misinformation. He has been ill-advised throughout on this issue. He has been led down the garden path by certain groups that run around doing calculations that are invalid, alleging there were going to be increases in acid rain as a result of this transaction, all of which is balderdash.

Now that it appears the transaction is not going to go through, why does not the Leader of the Opposition sit down, look back and maybe come to some understanding of what it is he has been trying to talk about for the last eight months? I will give him whatever information he requires.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, now that the GPU deal is not going through, will the Minister of the Environment sit down with Ontario Hydro and ensure that the acid rain, because of the subsequent SO₂ emissions, is appropriately and adequately reduced? In other words, will the minister now sit down and negotiate a very tough emission policy with Ontario Hydro to reduce acid rain in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say we have a regulation in place with Ontario Hydro now that is the toughest of any in North America or anywhere else I know of. If he has been following at all --

Mr. McClellan: In this or in any jurisdiction.

Mr. Foulds: Perhaps in the universe.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the honourable deputy leader of the third party has been following the negotiations that have been taking place pursuant to the memorandum of intent with the United States --

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I suspect the member has not, but if he has, he would understand that the scientists in the working groups are generally in agreement that approximately a 50 per cent reduction may well arrest the environmental damage that is being done as a result of sulphur emissions. Ontario Hydro is already committed to that type of reduction.

Along with Canada, Ontario has said to the United States that if we can get a comparable concession on their part, we will agree to a general 50 per cent reduction which may well mean that larger sources, like Ontario Hydro and Inco, may have to go further than 50 per cent because of the fact that certain small point sources may not be able to reduce by that amount. We will maintain that commitment, but I think it is important that the member and everyone else in Ontario, continuously point to Ontario Hydro as an example of what can be accomplished because Ontario Hydro has already agreed to go down by 50 per cent.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates, I noted that the minister had indicated he would have an announcement to make within the couple of weeks after the end of those estimates to tell us exactly how he had determined to make sure this was going to be a clean export.

I wonder if he would share with us the information he had been considering to require the introduction of environmental controls which would ameliorate any excess emissions caused by the GPU sale and provide us with the details of those. If they are too long or technical in form he could table the information. Then he could assure us that he will ask that scrubbers be installed at the Nanticoke power station to help reduce their emissions by the 50 per cent he is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think that the honourable critic and I ought to sit down and have a little chat because I am not sure he understands the question he asked. I would be glad to discuss this question with him, but I think it would be an entirely fruitless exercise to pretend that GPU was still on track and table documents and so on because those things have not been finally determined by --

Mr. Elston: You didn't have a plan, did you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, yes, I did.

Mr. Elston: That is what I am asking.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, yes, I did and the member knows very well that I did.

Mr. Bradley: Let's see what you would have done.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have no intention at this point of starting to table documents about something which no longer is relevant.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for "nine-job Walker," the Minister of Industry and Trade. I wonder if they could get him back in his seat. In the meantime, I will direct a question to the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Bradley: Here he is now.

Mr. Foulds: Now he is back, he can wait. I have two questions.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Energy fully aware that Consumers' Gas is seeking permission to charge a flat rate monthly fee of $18.30 for natural gas service? Is he aware that request is for more than double the highest existing fixed residential service charge of $9.90 charged in British Columbia and nearly four times that charged by the publicly owned Kitchener Public Utilities Commission?

Is the minister not concerned that the major utilities have regarded the failure in the past, by his ministry or the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to intervene to protect the people of Ontario from price gouging, simply as a signal for these energy monopolies, such as the gas companies, to ask for these kinds of increases?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why we have had exchanges in the House over the last several days about this. We are all members of the Legislature and we are all hearing from constituents with respect to this application, particularly those of us who come from the areas served by this company. I think the honourable deputy leader of the third party should recall, because after all, he is the critic of this ministry, what the role of the Ontario Energy Board is.

Mr. Foulds: I am talking about the minister's role.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am talking about the whole process that is put in place on behalf of the people of this province to consider an application that is formally submitted and, indeed, advertised and about which public hearings are scheduled to commence, I understand, some time in mid-summer. There is ample opportunity for people concerned about the implications of this application to make their representations.

I think it is important that we underline what the role of the Ontario Energy Board is in this situation. It was put in place for this very purpose: to monitor such applications and adjudicate them.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will not mind if I try to underline his responsibility.

Has the minister read the application by Consumers' Gas? If he has, does he recognize that its application is a direct attack on his government's much-advertised concern for conservation? For example, people with energy-efficient heat pumps will pay 26 per cent more, or $123, as a result of this proposal, whereas the typical consumer will pay $76 more and a consumer who has a swimming pool will pay only $11.60 more. In other words, this application is a direct attack on his government's stated policy of conservation. What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member quite properly asks the minister to review his responsibilities. I assume he would agree that any list of those responsibilities would include respect for the law, and the law is quite clear about the process in this particular matter as set out in the Ontario Energy Board legislation. The government policy to which he refers is quite clear, and there will be ample opportunity in a public forum to review all of these matters at the time of the consideration of this application.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy very ably uses the Ontario Energy Board to wash his hands of the whole matter, but does he realize that some of his colleagues do intervene? For example, on May 5, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) wrote to the energy board expressing his concerns about the proposed new hydro rates in northern Ontario. If he can intervene, why can the Minister of Energy not intervene to say what he thinks about energy prices in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just in case it has escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, hundreds of people in Ontario are writing to the energy board these days about both of these issues. That is one of the points that has to be underlined. The Ontario Energy Board and its role are quite clearly understood, and I think perhaps we should let that process work its way.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Energy realizes there is nothing in the Ontario Energy Board Act that prevents him or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who has responsibility for the protection of the consumer, from intervening and protecting the consumers at this hearing.

But there is another area. The Ontario Energy Board legislation provides that the minister has the power to take action. Does the minister recall that about three months ago members of this caucus officially appealed to his cabinet, under the Ontario Energy Board Act, to lower the 32 per cent increase in home heating gas rates, which were finalized last February 26? Those rates would permit Consumers' Gas Co. to increase their profits and return on investment by 25 per cent.

How can anyone conclude that the minister or his government has the slightest concern about the clobbering of the consumers on home heating gas rates when his government has not even replied to the official appeal that was made three months ago? Is the minister going to deal with it, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I can work backwards on the comments and questions, the appeal to which the honourable member refers is before the Lieutenant Governor in Council and will be dealt with in due course.

Mr. Swart: After three months you have not done anything.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Welland-Thorold knows from his municipal experience that all types of appeals go to cabinet: Ontario Municipal Board appeals and others.

Mr. Swart: This is not important, is it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I invite the member to review the time frame of those compared to this, and he will find no undue delay in the frank consideration of this particular appeal.

10:50 a.m.

I would like to suggest it would be wise for the member to review the legislation establishing the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board is there to protect people with respect to any unilateral action on the part of a franchise holder. That is what the whole process is about.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade who, when he was appointed to the ministry, said that his responsibility was "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Does the minister recall doing nothing when we brought to his attention the closing down of typewriter production at SCM in Scarborough, and also when Spalding closed out its golf-ball and golf-club production at Brantford? Is he now aware that, as of June 1, this type of iron, produced at Canadian General Electric in Barrie, will no longer be produced there but will be imported from Hong Kong? What is the minister going to do to stop the subsequent loss of jobs? When, specifically, is he going to keep his promise to create jobs and keep jobs here in Ontario and at the plant in Barrie?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Send it over to him.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes. I don't know why the member is not like his friend from Welland-Thorold. At least he would send it over to me. I have made quite a cache of things that he's sent over. Does the member think he could throw it this far?

Mr. Foulds: I will throw it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Do you think you could throw it this far?

It is very important that this government, the entire government of all the people represented here, be sure that we create a climate which above all welcomes the growth of investment in this province. That is one of the things I feel the opposition parties are to some extent pooh-poohing. We have to make sure that investment is welcomed here and that it will create more jobs.

We recognize there are internal changes within industrial sectors. However, the important thing for us is to continue to grow --

Mr. Laughren: It is not obvious.

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- and the more growth that we have in the province, the more jobs we will create. I think that member in the New Democratic Party would do well to remember that.

About the shocking display earlier today when a statement was made about some jobs being established in Elmira: If I were someone from another country looking on, if I were someone from Japan looking on and seeing the display of the New Democratic Party here today, I think I would come to the conclusion that there is some instability. However, the conclusion one would draw is that of the instability of the NDP.

Mr. MacDonald: That wasn't convincing enough even to persuade your own troops.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware that Canadian General Electric employed over 900 people in that plant in Barrie in the mid-1970s? That number has gone down to between 350 and 400 over the last few years as we have seen product after product phased out and produced offshore.

For example, this make-up mirror -- I will send it to the minister -- a product which used to be produced at the Barrie plant, is now produced in Hong Kong. This type of can opener, which used to be produced at the Barrie plant, is now produced in the United States; this mixer, which used to be produced in the Barrie plant, is now produced in the United States; and this electric knife, which used to be produced at the Barrie plant, is now produced in the United States.

Over 20 product lines have been phased out. Does the minister not think that the drastic reduction in lines and the drastic reduction in jobs calls for some action on the part of his government, more than creating the piddling nine jobs that you have created today?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The important role of this government is to ensure that there is a climate for proper investment and a climate in which business can do business. The most important responsibility that a company can have is to ensure that it is competitive and that it makes a profit, because if it does not make a profit, it is going to go broke and all of the jobs are going to be lost.

That is the thing the member fails to remember. He would go out and force all of those companies to engage all kinds of extra people even though the competitive market may not suggest that should be done.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his exciting announcement today. The most significant thing he has done since he became the minister is to create these nine jobs in Elmira.

May I ask why he did not announce at the same time that the Elmira Signet closed today, laying off permanently three full-time and four part-time workers?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there is an announcement of a closure, it is a very unfortunate thing, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) should be treating it in that sense. It is not something he should be parading out here to make an example of them, or to make a fool of them. I do not know why he would even think of that.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister recall that this government, through its former employment development fund, and its present Board of Industrial Leadership and Development fund, gave a million-dollar interest-free loan to CGE in Barrie to create jobs, and does he realize that since that time 100 jobs have been lost? How does he justify that kind of generosity to corporations such as CGE, when they are phasing out the jobs from under him? What is he going to do to protect the jobs of those workers in Barrie, and to protect the jobs of those employees?

Hon. Mr. Walker: First of all, we have an economic situation in this world, in this country, and in this province, the like of which we have not seen for a long time. That is certainly something that has to be taken into account in any of the business decisions that may have been made by any of the companies involved.

The honourable member makes reference to the employment development fund and he fails to mention that 130 applications were approved. Of the $175 million in grants that were provided through the employment development fund, it levered something like $2,500,000 worth of extra investment, creating in the process 16,700 jobs in the space of a couple of years. How does he ignore that? Why does he not make some reference to that today? That is a fact he is ignoring entirely.

The employment development fund was succeeded by BILD, and BILD in itself has been an industrial strategy that has succeeded in creating all kinds of new jobs. I could go through a litany of all the new jobs established through the BILD initiatives.

[Later]

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to correct the record. First, when I said these electric irons were produced in Hong Kong, I meant Singapore. Second, for those members interested, like the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), there will be a garage sale in my office upon adjournment.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General.

The minister has heard our plea for an open public inquiry into the events surrounding the unfortunate deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. Editorials have made the same demand, and a number of parents have gone on record as requesting an open public inquiry.

The minister has received a letter from a Hamilton family, whose son was in the same room as two of the murdered babies, and I would like to quote just briefly from that letter. I might add that their son, Matthew, will be going into the hospital for further surgery in those wards this fall.

"We are most concerned that 4A and 4B can no longer meet our son's needs when the atmosphere there has been so obviously poisoned by hatred, deception, lack of trust, and, worst of all, random murders. We urge you to immediately set up a royal commission, a public inquiry, into all aspects of policy, funding, administration, and medical procedures, so that our family, our province, our nation, and the world can once again look up to the hospital."

What answer does the Attorney General have for those parents today, parents who will have to send their child back to those wards next fall?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, certainly we all share the concerns of any parents who do have these worries. The chief concern of any parent, in relation to having a child admitted to Sick Children's Hospital, would be the hope that the perpetrator of these horrible acts was apprehended. Normally, that would be the highest of priorities.

Obviously, one cannot have a royal commission going on at the same time as a criminal investigation, without seriously undermining the criminal investigation. We all have a responsibility to assure parents that everything reasonable is being done. We believe that it is.

The announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), with respect to the investigation headed up by one of our most distinguished jurists in Canada, Mr. Justice Charles Dubin, should also be emphasized as part of the assurance we wish all parents to have.

11 a.m.

Ms. Copps: Is the minister fully aware that the investigation set up by Mr. Justice Dubin will not look at any of the events surrounding the unusual deaths and will only look from this day forward? In this family in particular, their son happened to be in the same room as two of the dead babies. More than a year has elapsed since those murders and the mother of the child happens to be a registered nurse who is employed in the neonatal unit at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital. Is the minister not just a little concerned that the police have not even gotten in touch with this family?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I may be a little repetitive, but as a parent myself, I would think that most parents would have as their chief concern current procedures and the safety of current procedures. Surely, that is only common sense and that is what Mr. Justice Dubin's committee is all about.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney General at least reconsider with his colleague the Minister of Health, the question of making the inquiry being conducted by Mr. Justice Dubin a public inquiry, having regard to the exceptional capacities and abilities of the judge to make certain that the administration of justice in the police investigations will not in any way be impeded? Would he not, at this point, reconsider the decision of his objection to the public nature of the inquiry proposed by the Minister of Health and recommend to him, or agree with him, that it should now be public?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the question presented by the member for Riverdale points out some degree of confusion which may exist in the community about the nature of Mr. Justice Dubin's mandate. It is not an inquiry; it is an investigation. Certainly the member for Riverdale knows, as well as anybody else, that if there were to be a public inquiry, it would have to be preceded by a proper investigation. We are not talking about an inquiry at this point. Neither the Minister of Health nor I have ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry when the investigations are completed; first the criminal investigation, second, Mr. Justice Dubin's investigation under the Public Hospitals Act to assure that the present procedures are adequate.

STEWART CASE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General will recall that on April 30, I raised with him the case of Derrick Cole and the evident injustice which was caused to Mr. Cole through the administration of the system of justice in the province.

I now have another case that I want to draw to his attention. I know the Attorney General must be familiar with it, because he has had an exchange of correspondence in connection with it. The case is that of one Clifton Stewart, who was acquitted of a second degree murder charge in Toronto by a jury on January 23 of this year, after having spent 500 days in jail awaiting his trial and subsequent acquittal.

Will the Attorney General, in the unique, special and particular circumstances of that case, consider the payment of some compensation to Mr. Stewart for this long period of incarceration which preceded his acquittal?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do recall the name of the accused but I do not recall at this moment the circumstances of the case or of the trial leading up to the acquittal. All I can say at this time is that I will pursue the matter and report back to the Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the Attorney General, when he is pursuing the matter, would reconsider his correspondence and address a further reply to Mr. Stewart, because of the response of the Attorney General to him.

Mr. Stewart wrote indicating he had been in the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre for 500 days, from September 1980 to January 1982. He had been released after acquittal by a jury. He indicated he had not been able since to find any form of employment and had been unable to be reinstated in his former job. He wrote to the Attorney General requesting some form of assistance and information regarding employment and compensation.

The minister replied on May 10 indicating to him that at the present time there were no openings in his ministry for employment and indicating how he should make application through the recruitment procedures if he wished employment with the ministry. With respect to his request for compensation, the minister indicated to him that if he had any problems in that connection he should consult his lawyer. Would the Attorney General reconsider his inadvertently nonresponsive reply to Mr. Stewart's request?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add to my response, Mr. Speaker.

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that the departure time for the proposed GO train on the Stouffville-Toronto line has been announced as 7:10 a.m. which is the present departure time of the Via train? Such a train will not be a viable alternative for the riders of the present Toronto-Havelock line in the Uxbridge, Port Perry and Claremont areas. Will he investigate the possibility of altering the departure time of the GO train to a more popular hour?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes I will, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the ramifications are. I know the trains have to be scheduled a great deal because of space when arriving at Union Station. I understand the member's concern and I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Stevenson: In one of our meetings with the minister regarding the Via Rail cutbacks some time ago, one of the ministry officials suggested there would be more than one train on the Toronto-Stouffville line. Why has the expanded service with more flexible hours not materialized?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is mainly because in the time available to us to implement this service by September 7, I believe it is, we will be replacing the existing Via services only. This is partially due to lack of equipment, equipment that is not available at the present time, but will be when the new doubledecker cars start arriving from Thunder Bay later this year or perhaps next year.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is taking this into consideration, will he consider extending the GO service to Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member already knows very well that is under consideration.

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. In view of the announcement this morning by the Minister of Revenue and the representations he has received, and which members on that side and this side of the House have received, concerning the new tax imposed on repairs and alterations to clothing done by dry cleaners and launderers, is the Treasurer now prepared to withdraw this unfair, inequitable, inflationary tax that will hit particularly hard at the poor who cannot necessarily afford new clothing and must rely upon alterations, renovations and repairs to older clothing?

In view of the announcement by his colleague the Minister of Revenue, is he prepared to relent and give these people an opportunity to provide the service without an additional tax burden? I would like to send over to the Treasurer a petition from a group of people in St. Catharines. I am sure there are many across the province who are asking that he do just that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend implies there were no exemptions in existing regulations for the kind of events my colleague the Minister of Revenue described. In fact, there were exemptions both for events held by charitable organizations, including churches, and for charitable camps.

There has been a fair degree of inflation since those regulations were last reviewed, and in order that there would be no question about the applicability of the tax we simply broadened the definitions of those regulations both to cover today's dollar values and to compensate for the fact that we made a specific change in the tax base during the budget.

Interjections.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is another thing. The member's leader keeps talking about cash registers for the people who have to perform services such as collecting tax on food and coffee wagons. The regulation does not require a cash register; the regulation does not require the separate collection of tax; the regulation allows for a simple operation, that of remitting 7/107 of the money collected on a given day. The price can include taxes as long as it is indicated that: "price includes tax."

A lot of the ifs, ands and buts and the big problems in administration that the member is dreaming about just do not exist. Therefore, while we are clarifying something in this case which already existed, at this point I have no intention, nor do I expect to have any intention, of changing anything relating to tangible personal property. I am, however, listening very carefully to what I would call the bureaucratic problems that pop up whenever a tax is applied to a new item.

Very few people were here last night during the Bill 111 debate, and although I mentioned it at that time, I think while I am on my feet I should also point out with regard to the precedent referred to by the Leader of the Opposition about these bills having been sent to committee before, that he really was talking about a private member's public bill, Bill 47, introduced in this House by Mr. Wintermeyer in 1961. Having read through Hansard and the committee, I can say that all that was discussed was the quantum.

Mr. Bradley: You didn't answer my question.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In response to the honourable minister's comment, I want to bring to the attention of the members that the motion by the Premier was to send the budgetary material encompassed in the bill to the committee for discussion of the material in the bill having to do with sales tax. The tax was new, just as the expansion of the base now is new. in those days the Premier took the initiative.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are straying from the question period and there are proper times to deal with this.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Treasurer: I have here several pages of petitions from Carson Cleaners in Hanover and Durham Cleaners in the town of Durham, signed by their customers, that I will send over to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer not understand that he is contributing to having people going around with unkempt clothing?

I think the Treasurer also talked about a bureaucratic problem. Does he not understand that he is really putting another nail in the coffin of small businesses by forcing them into more bookwork, rules and regulations when they have been trying for years to have all that reduced? Would the Treasurer not consider dropping this tax to keep them free from this by not creating more rules and regulations?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I do not feel that. I considered alternatives very carefully in the pre-budget period. One of the alternatives was eight per cent on the present base. However, in my 1981 budget I said that we would be reviewing the existing exemptions which have occurred over many years, starting in 1962. I could go back and show the member that soap was taxed in 1961. It seems that many members do not realize that. Many of the items have had exemptions put on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now that's getting personal.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Pat never used soap.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course, you have to touch it to understand that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That's what I mean -- personal.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is there were many inconsistencies in the base. The broadening of the base would not yield as much money as raising the tax rate from seven to eight per cent. As I pointed out to the Ontario Trucking Association yesterday, charging tax on repairs will certainly add to the cost of repairs, but adding one per cent to the price of a $100,000 truck is much more likely to affect the decision of the buyer as to whether he will use the service or the item.

TECHNOLOGY CENTRES

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and nine jobs, if he would return to his seat. Is it correct that the minister stated in Hamilton recently in a speech before the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in discussing the technology centres, "While these centres are being initiated by my ministry, eventually it is my hope that these centres will be turned over to the private sector"?

If that is accurate, are we in a situation now where this government has committed $126.5 million in investment of public funds over the next five years and already the minister is talking about turning that investment over to the private sector once it becomes a going concern?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I suppose the short answer to that is yes. Although I think it has to be qualified on the grounds that we expect private enterprise to be running the centres for us. The member will see the approach we are taking to upgrade the technology centres on Monday during the second reading of the bill. I will be able to give him an update on that day as to where we stand in respect to each of the centres and how we intend to approach them. The vast majority of the members of the boards of directors, for instance, will be from the private sector. So, in essence, it can be said they are being run by the private sector.

To say that they are going to be owned by the private sector and physically have title transferred to them is not accurate. To the extent that the paragraph of my speech the member has read conveys that message, that is just not quite accurate. The more accurate reflection of that is they will be running them in the broadest sense of the word, because they will be the corporate directors of them.

We expect to have a modest number of government employees on the tech centre boards. They will, of course, report to me as Minister of Industry and Trade. They will have certain relationships with other adjuncts of government. Of course, a certain amount of money will be provided for the running of these, but we do expect that within five years they should be 50 per cent self-sustaining.

That is our hope and goal. To achieve that we feel we need to have a very direct involvement of the private sector. It has to be, really, to their greatest benefit that we are establishing these centres. When business is working, jobs will be created.

Mr. Wildman: With regard to Bill 124, obviously we have to complete the bill that establishes the ministry first. That is going to take some debate. Could the minister clarify his answer, because he has just said yes, it is going to be turned over to the private sector but no, they will not have title? Is that what he is actually saying to us?

Are we to understand that his statement today about Sanyo establishing in Elmira, and being close to the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology centre, is not a move by Sanyo to be able to take over CAD/CAM in the future if it becomes a going concern?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think that is a quantum leap. No, I do not think Sanyo will be taking over the CAD/CAM centre. It will not be known as the CAD/CAM Sanyo centre. In fact, it will be a provincial institution. The member will see that it is the board of directors, which will be made up by and large of industry people, who will be running both the CAD/CAM centre and the robotics centre, and indeed the other four technology centres that we are establishing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On the point of order a few moments ago you said there was an appropriate way to deal with a difference of opinion, but I feel when one member says I am wrong I have the right to clarify that point. I agree --

Ms. Copps: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a point of privilege on the floor which must be recognized immediately.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has implied that I was incorrect, that the Bill 47, in 1961, was referring to a new tax. It was referring to a tax that was in place. If the member will recall, the bill was referred to the standing committee on public accounts, not to discuss the principles at all but simply because -- as Mr. Robarts and Mr. Wintermeyer agreed in the House and I could have quoted the passages -- there was a difference of several millions of dollars between $52 million and $115 million in the figures. All that committee was asked to do was to reconcile a set of figures and not discuss a principle of taxation.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Nixon: On the point, I can assure the Treasurer that I was present at the hearing. I was in the House when the then Premier himself made the reference. The sales tax base was just newly being established. The opponents on this side felt that the indications put forward by the government were erroneous. I attended the meeting of the public accounts committee at which the concepts of the sales tax, particularly the whole matter of exemptions, which is exactly the body of the content of the bill that his colleague has put before the House, was discussed by the committee with a reference back here.

I must say to the Treasurer that the opposition did not carry the day but the government of the day at least sent the matter to committee for discussion.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well then, I still have to correct that impression and now I will read the quotes. Mr. Robarts said:

"I certainly do and I am prepared, as I have said already, to have an examination made of the figures just to find out really what we are talking about. This is a very serious matter ..."

Mr. Wintermeyer, after the hearing on April 18, 1962, said: "that, Mr. Speaker, was afforded the Liberal exponent of our concept of the amendment that should have been inaugurated in the sales tax.

"But that did not happen, we simply adjourned. We simply adjourned the meeting and the sales tax as we had known it, that sales tax that I think we have attacked very effectively and very rightly as unimaginative and lacking in consideration of the little storekeeper and the customer as such, is going to continue to be the law of the land for a few months at least."

Mr. Robarts replied: "I will refer to the sales tax perhaps on two occasions. Honourable members know I did not attend this meeting of the public accounts committee, but the reports that came to me differed very remarkably from the report given to the House this afternoon by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. As I understand it, we did a very creditable job of justifying the figures that we advanced."

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. This has to do with the continuing difficulty in the new town of Townsend, the baby of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who has just resumed his seat.

Can she verify that the Ontario Land Corp. is actually paying the school fees for the residents in the new town who were attracted into the community with misinformation about the school jurisdictions, not realizing that the boundaries between two school boards runs right down the main street of the new town that the minister has been promoting with so many subsidies and public dollars?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot but I shall explore the matter.

Mr. Nixon: Since the Minister of Education cannot take responsibility for the ill-informed decisions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and his predecessor who got her into this mess, can she explain to the House what disposition she is going to make of the matter that finds two school boards with jurisdiction in one community with all of the resulting confusions involved for the citizens, the taxpayers, who have been led to make their investments in homes there under circumstances that were not properly described to them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I find this one of the most interesting and challenging problems to be faced. With the assistance of the local residents, with the assistance of those who are in office in that locality and my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I am sure we will find a resolution.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Education and it is regarding the heritage languages program. Recognizing the fact that the Metropolitan Separate School Board has provided heritage languages education by extending the formal school day by one and a half hours, will she now reconsider her position and permit heritage languages education within the formal school day, as established by herself, so the Toronto board will not have to bear the additional costs and other problems by extending the school day, at its discretion, to produce this essential education in the city?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the heritage languages program is funded as a continuing education program. It may, under the rules of that regulation, provide the program after school, not necessarily in the evening as has been suggested by some reports that I have heard, on Saturday or within the hours that have ordinarily been set for school days, provided that the instructional day to encompass the curriculum of the elementary program is extended by one half hour in order that this curriculum may be delivered to the children.

The Metropolitan Separate School Board has, for at least three years now, provided the program in many of their schools immediately before lunch, but the school day has been extended in order to accommodate the deletion from the standard curriculum which that period of time occupies. The Toronto board is well aware that it can do that for the continuing education heritage languages program if it wishes to do so, and that was made entirely clear in the letter I sent to them.

REORGANIZATION OF MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege which involves the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). Yesterday, one legislative sitting after we finished going through the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, he advised this House that he was embarking on a reorganization of his ministry; yet in his three-and-a-half-hour address to our committee and the members there he gave us not one hint or any information that he was going to be doing the reorganization.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, what that does is to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege, with all respect.

PETITION

ROAD PAVING

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition that contains over 700 names and reads as follows:

"We the undersigned feel that another two lanes of highway between New Hamburg and Stratford are not needed at this time. We also feel that the present Highway 7 and 8 could be upgraded by levelling it out, repaving it and widening the shoulders to accommodate the agricultural traffic. We also feel that with proper signs many more paved roads in the area could be utilized and reduce the traffic on Highway 7 and 8."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMMUNIZATION OF SCHOOL PUPILS ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 142, An Act to protect the Health of Pupils in Schools.

Motion agreed to.

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I believe the standing orders require that when major legislation is introduced a compendium should be attached. I wonder whether the minister has done that in this case.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check to see if a compendium is available.

Mr. Speaker: He will check into it to see if it is available.

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: I have discussed this bill in detail with the Labour critic of the New Democratic Party and with the Labour critic of the Liberal Party. They are fully aware of the contents of it and are supportive of it.

I have some comments on the bill. I am introducing some amendments to the Operating Engineers Act. All references to operators of hoisting plants and steam hoisting plants would be deleted.

As it stands, hoisting operators are required to be certified under the act. The training of these operators will soon become the responsibility of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

The amendment implements the recommendations of the report of the provincial labour-management safety committee of the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. Furthermore, all references to the board of examiners constituted under the act have been deleted.

The purpose of the board is to conduct examinations of stationary engineers and to issue certificates of qualification. This function now can be performed by the chief officer appointed under the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to revise the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think most of the members on both sides of the House who have been following the passage of this legislation with a great deal of interest will be aware of the fact that this is basically the product of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada process and basically will be uniform legislation throughout the country.

We now have reciprocal enforcement of maintenance agreements with every province and territory in Canada, some 25 states in the United States -- we are hoping to add to that number -- and most nations in the British Commonwealth. It is important legislation, and I welcome the support of the members on second reading.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I accept the invitation for support and pledge the support of our party. Since its introduction, we have considered this a very important piece of legislation. Our only concern was that perhaps we would not get to see this legislation come back before the House before the summer came upon us.

There are some important steps to be taken in this legislation which will eradicate some of the inequities that have developed as a result of people moving between jurisdictions in this country as well as between international jurisdictions. Without prolonging the matter, I want to commend the Attorney General for bringing in this bill, and it will receive our support.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Attorney General to know that we in this party have considered the bill, that we will support it and that we have no amendments to propose. I have two brief questions for the Attorney General.

First, I would like to know on what date he anticipates the proclamation will be issued bringing the bill into force. It has been a substantial period of time in process, and everyone wishes that it will be part of the law of the province as soon as is convenient.

The further comment I want to make in an introductory sense is that the explanation which the Attorney General included in the compendium of information he gave with respect to the bill, related to the change in section 7 of this bill from the provision in the uniform bill, is one with which I personally agree.

I am glad that a blind conformity did not prevent the Attorney General from asserting the proposition that it should be the originating court that has the final determination with respect to the terms of its order and not allowing amendments, variations and changes in that order by the registration court.

Over the years the question of the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders has been one of inefficiency, unclear laws and problems within the different jurisdictions about the right of the reciprocating countries to change the law or to enforce the order of the originating jurisdiction.

All of us welcome the immense amount of work that was done, both in British Columbia and through the commissioners on uniformity, in bringing this bill to almost a country-wide acceptance so that we will eliminate many of the problems that have occurred over the years.

I have on other occasions paid my tribute to the former Deputy Attorney General of the province, and, of course, Mr. Leal was involved very intimately with the development of this draft bill. We welcome it and support it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support of members opposite. I would like to indicate to the member for Riverdale that it is our intention to proclaim the legislation immediately upon passage.

Mr. Renwick: Does that mean this year?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I hope before the summer recess.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is a housekeeping item which is quite self-explanatory. The explanatory note states:

"The amendment would permit matters in a surrogate court in which the office of judge is temporarily vacant to be dealt with by a surrogate court judge outside the county. The amendment is parallel to the provision applying to county court judges under section 17 of the County Judges Act."

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in support of this piece of legislation.

I want to indicate to the Attorney General that we members who represent areas that are not as heavily populated as here in Metropolitan Toronto often have difficulties in doing the normal business of the legal profession when it comes to absences out of the county by the county judges for vacation, reasons of illness or whatever. We are often overlooked when it comes to getting this legislation before the House and helping us have an easier time of providing the effective service to the communities we represent and serve as members of the bar.

It goes without saying that this legislation, although it may seem minor to a lot of people, will help in many instances in the smaller communities.

11:40 a.m.

I want to recommend to the Attorney General that he now proceed to look at other sorts of problems that have been raised on many other occasions by members from the smaller, more lightly populated areas of the province with respect to the administration of justice, whether they be problems in having the necessary staff available to help carry on the work and programs of the judges -- whether surrogate, county, small claims or whatever -- or whether they be in respect of a very difficult position with respect to receiving expert advice in various matters that come before the judges.

I commend this piece of legislation, because it deals with one very difficult problem in the surrogate courts, but I have to tell the Attorney General that because he deals with one problem he ought not to stop there as it applies to our communities. He ought to continue to look at other suggestions that are being made to help us be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the public and therefore to help us elevate the level of respect that the bar attempts to receive from the public at large.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the record should clearly show that the Attorney General was good enough, in the compendium he sent us about this bill, to indicate that His Honour Judge Colter, the chief judge of the county and district courts of Ontario, had some time ago asked the then Deputy Attorney General to make this provision so that it would coincide with the change we made quite recently in the County Judges Act.

The record should show that the reason stated by Judge Colter was as follows: In a single-judge county where, as so frequently happens, there is a long period between the death or retirement of a judge and the appointment of a successor, it would be very helpful if the surrogate court clerk could send urgent matters to the judge of a neighbouring county instead of having to wait until it is possible for the neighbouring judge to travel to the county where the vacancy has occurred.

With that brief comment, our party will support the bill, and we have no amendments to propose.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

CHARITIES ACCOUNTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this bill is complementary to Bill 4, An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

The new clause 6(b) provides for the sale to the public trustee of land that is given or held for charitable purposes but ceases to be actually used and occupied for the charitable purpose.

The new clause 6(c) preserves the authority for certain public bodies to receive and administer property in trust for charitable purposes.

The new clause 6(d) retains the procedure contained in section 14 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act for taking complaints about the execution of a charitable trust to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it probably goes without saying that it is always nice to have our legislation in order and to be able to clean house with some of these bills. Although they may appear on the surface to be rather innocuous to most people involved, I think we really ought to take time to discuss some of the sections of this piece of legislation, although it is drafted to bring us into conformity with other legislation.

I wonder whether I could get a commitment from the Attorney General to allow us to put this into committee of the whole House very briefly so we could deal with some of the interpretative matters in the way some of these sections are dealt with. I will end my remarks at this point and then bring those up in the form of questions on various sections, if that is appropriate.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I will agree to that.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular concern, but I certainly have no objection if the bill goes into committee of the whole House. I think the comments I would like to make I should make on second reading of the bill.

This bill, of course, is a companion bill to the bill we will be discussing next in the order of business, Bill 4, An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, and is part of the carrying out finally of the recommendations set out in the Report on Mortmain, Charitable Uses and Religious Institutions, which was tabled in this Legislature in the early days of the ministry of this Attorney General, in 1976; so it has been a long time in coming.

The first point we should make is that the bill defines, in the ancient terms of the statute of Elizabeth I, "charitable purpose" as being the relief of poverty, education, the advancement of religion and any purpose beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding three headings.

The reason I mention that is to make certain the record shows clearly that the question of the holding of lands by religious organizations is not involved in this bill. I trust the Attorney General will correct me if I am wrong, because in this assembly, following upon the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission to which I referred earlier, we passed in 1979 the Religious Organizations' Lands Act. The Charities Accounting Act does not apply to the capacity of power or the way in which religious organizations may hold land necessary for use and occupation in Ontario. That statute now is contained in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, chapter 448.

Very briefly, it is essential that provisions should be contained in this bill to make certain that where lands are held by charitable institutions in this province, they are held for their actual use and occupation. Otherwise, land could be in a very real sense concentrated in private hands through charitable institutions that would qualify as charitable institutions; but there could be, as the law reform commission indicated, immense concentrations of economic wealth consisting of land, a very scarce resource, in such charitable organizations.

The principle of the bill, to make certain that charitable organizations may hold land only for their actual use and occupation and in accordance with the other provisions of the bill before us, is a salutary and very necessary part of our law and should be continued as it is, on transference from the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, which will be repealed when the next bill, Bill 4, is approved by the assembly.

The actual conditions provided in this bill are that the land must be actually used and occupied for the charitable purpose for the period of time that it is required for the actual use and occupation for the charitable purpose or will be required for the actual use and occupation for the charitable purpose in the immediate future.

I think those clauses give sufficient ambit and sufficient flexibility to permit the public trustee not to intervene except in those situations where it is necessary for him to question whether the land meets one or more or all of the three provisions set out in the bill.

The processes in the bill appear to me to be adequate. Our party will support the bill. We have no need to consider any amendments, but we do not object to the bill going to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

11:50 a.m.

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 4, An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

Hon Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the explanatory note states, the bill abolishes the requirement that a corporation hold a licence in mortmain in order to hold land. Certain provisions of the repealed act that apply to charitable trusts are preserved and rewritten in a bill to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to offer our support for the bill and to indicate that some of our legislation which has been on the books for some time has caused minor problems with respect to some of us who were educated much more recently by the law schools. When we get back into the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, we find there have been suggestions since the early 1970s, when I was in school, that there should be a lot of house cleaning done. I commend the Attorney General for getting around to helping us out on that level in this regard.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about this bill, but not because we are in any opposition to it. We accept the anachronism of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act as it stands and we therefore support the repeal of the bill. We have no amendments to propose. In my view, it is not necessary that the bill go to committee of the whole House.

However, that does not quite deal with all the matters of immense public concern, matters which are from time to time topical and of concern to people in the province with respect to the ownership of land by corporations and the extent and degree to which the government of the province sees fit to either monitor or control the ownership of land -- that is, to monitor in the sense of knowing the extent and degree of the ownership of land in the province by corporations -- and, with respect to the questions of ownership, the vexed questions as to whether non-Canadians or aliens should own land in Ontario in any event or for any purpose. Those are serious problems of concern.

On the first point, I want the House to understand clearly that when we recently passed the Business Corporations Act in this assembly, after it was considered in standing committee this spring, we did away with a great deal of the ancient history of corporations. It now simply says that a corporation is the same as an individual and has the same powers, rights, capacities and so on.

However, the Business Corporations Act did not see fit to have incorporated in it the provision recommended by the Ontario Law Reform Commission for inclusion in the Business Corporations Act of what now is section 275 of the Corporations Act of Ontario and the following provision, section 276. I want to put clearly on the record that with the Corporations Act, which still has some action in the province, although the business corporations part of it has been extracted into a separate statute, it was traditional in Ontario to state that a corporation incorporated under the laws of this province would have the power "to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to hold any land or interest therein necessary for its actual use and occupation or for carrying on its undertaking and, when no longer so necessary, to sell, alienate and convey the same."

There was and is this further provision in the Corporations Act: "No corporation and no trustee on its behalf shall acquire or hold any land or interest therein not necessary for the actual use and occupation of the corporation or for carrying on its undertaking or not held by way of security for more than seven years after its acquisition if the land was never so necessary or after it has ceased to be so necessary."

The Corporations Act further provides: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may extend the period of seven years mentioned ... but no such extension or extensions shall exceed five years in all."

I do not argue for the specific merit of the exact wording of the sections in the Corporations Act, but I want the House to understand that the Ontario Law Reform Commission, in its report to this assembly, very carefully took the trouble to recommend, and I quote from recommendation 6 on page 24 of the commission's report of 1976:

"Consideration should be given to the enactment of an amendment to the Business Corporations Act similar to section 306" -- as it then was; now sections 275 and 276, which I have just quoted -- "of the Corporations Act requiring the sale of land within seven years after it is no longer required for actual use of a corporation or for carrying on its undertaking."

The House should be quite aware that this government, for whatever reasons it may choose, has decided that corporations incorporated under our laws in Ontario shall be subject to no restriction on their capacity and ability to hold or own land in the province.

It is fair to say that the recommendation was also made in the report of the law reform commission that our extraprovincial corporations legislation, which applies to corporations incorporated elsewhere than under the laws of this jurisdiction, should be similarly subject to the same kind of limitation on their capacity to hold land and the length of period -- not on their capacity to hold that land but on the amount of land, the purposes for which it would be used and the duration of the period of time during which it could be held.

It was proposed that the vacuum which would occur when we repealed the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, in so far as those corporations not incorporated under this jurisdiction but holding land in Ontario are concerned, could be filled by the introduction into the new extraprovincial corporations act of a provision similar to that to which I have referred as now contained in section 276 of the Corporations Act of Ontario.

The distinction may be a little bit confusing to members of the House who are not familiar with these acts, but the Corporations Act of Ontario used to deal with the whole range of corporations incorporated here; it now deals only with corporations without share capital, or nonbusiness corporations, because of the change that took place.

It does not alter the force of the law reform commission's argument, which in my view is absolutely essential, that the government should have given adequate consideration to the policy considerations underlying the concerns that were drawn to the attention of the government in the report of the law reform commission.

It is a serious omission. It is important that the Legislature be aware that while we are continuing to impose limitations on the nature and extent of the holding of land by charitable organizations and providing very effective procedures for divesting charitable institutions of land, we are saying to the business corporations of this province, "We are not interested in how much land you may own or hold."

The comments made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission with respect to scarce resources, the degree of concentration of economic power as a result of the ownership of land and all of the consequences that flow from this kind of concentration of power are now being abdicated by this government.

12 noon

That was, of course, in a sense a control operation. There is at least an argument to be made in this province for the proposition that there should be some method by which to monitor, in a central registry, through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations or whatever is the appropriate body, the amount of land, the location of the land and the extent and degree of the holding of land by business corporations in the province.

I know that the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has raised on a number of occasions, as my colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and many people in this assembly have raised with the ministers of Agriculture and Food of the province, the question of the extent and degree of foreign ownership of agricultural land, and the extent and degree of the penetration by individuals, let alone corporations, of the ownership of agricultural land in the province.

We certainly believe that to the extent that agriculture is carried on through business corporations of one kind or another -- or agrocorporations, as they are sometimes called -- there should have been a complementary provision in another bill to be introduced into this assembly to at least monitor the extent and degree of the corporate ownership of land in specified fields, if the government does not choose to do so in all of the fields, of activity of business corporations.

The report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission gave very clear and compelling reasons why the policy questions at least deserved adequate consideration, yet when the minister introduced this bill in the assembly there was no specific reference at that time to these policy considerations, which have been ignored by the government, and I want to draw the attention of the House to that serious omission.

At the time the report was made the law reform commissioners examined very carefully the case of the legislation in Prince Edward Island with respect to the ownership of land and the constitutional issues involved in that case. This is not the time or the occasion to outline the particulars of that case, but I do want to quote what they say in their report on page 18:

"It should be noted that the Morgan case does not decide whether legislation directed solely at persons not resident in Canada would be valid. A strong argument can be made that such provincial legislation would be valid. The case does appear to say that legislation of this type may be directed to either aliens or citizens or both aliens and citizens who reside elsewhere than in the province, subject, of course, to the foregoing test."

There is a particular test set out above that the legislation must not be colourable legislation; it must deal with property and civil rights, which are totally within the jurisdiction of this assembly, and not under disguise deal with citizenship and aliens, which is a matter, of course, reserved to the federal government.

The arguments are put forward, and the discussion of that case takes up several pages in the report; it deserves serious consideration by anybody considering the question of whether or not it is in the public interest of Ontario that land be controlled by persons who are not Canadians or not residents in Ontario or landed immigrants resident in Ontario. Those questions have never been addressed by this government. It seems to be unable to understand the economic power and wealth that go with the ownership of land in the province, or seems not to care about the implications. Certainly the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) may have his own personal views about it, but those in charge of the economic destiny of this province have never shown any interest of any kind in that kind of provision.

I may say that, while I did not sit on the committee, this Legislature had a select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, which sat some years ago. The report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission has this to say:

Having said that in respect of the Morgan case, "it would appear, however, that carefully drafted legislation would avoid the constitutional restrictions," the report then goes on, "The province of Ontario has already acted in this respect in controlling foreign investment, principally in the case of financial institutions and, more recently, in controlling foreign ownership of certain types of land in this province."

I will be interested in what the Attorney General has to say about that. My opinion now is that, at this present time, the ownership of land by business corporations is unrestricted in any way.

Going further on in its comments, "Furthermore, the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism has made a number of recommendations which would have the effect of ensuring that future acquisitions of land generally be substantially restricted to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants resident in Canada and corporations or ventures owned substantially by Canadian citizens or landed immigrants resident in Canada."

It is not fashionable now, perhaps, to deal with the recommendations of that committee, but at this time in the economy of the province, in my view, it is extremely important that the recommendations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism should be looked at again in the light of the difficulties we are having in the economy of the province and in the economy of the country. We should determine whether it is not an appropriate response to make certain that the land of this province has the kinds of restrictions that were recommended, I believe almost unanimously, by the members of that select committee.

I may say that the party to which I belong passed at its recent convention in February of this year, its resolution on this question. I want the House to understand what the New Democratic Party assembled in convention in February of this year had to say about this question of land ownership, particularly in its absentee aspects and related to the communities of Ontario. The resolution was introduced, interestingly enough, by the New Democratic Party riding association from the riding of Huron-Middlesex. It was passed after debate and consideration in the convention, and I quote the resolution:

"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 say: disastrous implications regarding who controls our food land resources and 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."

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the assembly the report of the law reform commission. It states in a very succinct, clear and concise way the problems related to the vexed question of the ownership of land. The policy considerations that were of concern to the commission have not been dealt with in so far as corporations are concerned. They have, however, been dealt with and we are dealing with them in so far as charitable uses are concerned and they have been dealt with in so far as religious organizations are concerned.

12:10 p.m.

But in keeping with the hands off, laissez-faire, inadequate, inappropriate response of the government to the economic life of the province, it has decided in its wisdom or unwisdom that the whole question not only of the monitoring of the ownership of land by business corporations in the province will be ignored, but it has also clearly indicated that it is not interested in any way whatsoever in drafting the careful legislation which would protect the ownership of land for Canadian Citizens and landed immigrants resident in Canada, and would make certain that part of the patrimony of this province, the basic land of the province, would not be owned outside the country.

Those are matters which distinguish the Conservative Party from this party in a clear and special way. I have never understood the rationale of the Conservative Party which has had no interest whatsoever in the extent and degree of the penetration of the ownership of land in this province by foreign corporations. It has expressed little if any interest in the special and particular circumstance of agricultural land in the province. It has no interest whatsoever in the extent and degree of the ownership of land by corporations generally, let alone foreign corporations.

That does not alter the fact it is time we got rid of this archaic bill because it was not fulfilling any of those purposes. It could have, if it had been carefully monitored over the years and adapted to bring it into line with modern needs. But the province had not touched the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act for many years. Its archaic nature is known only to lawyers and its repeal is an essential ingredient.

Why the government would leave the vacuum in one of the three fields covered by the report is beyond my comprehension. I leave it at that. There have been other occasions when colleagues of mine have spoken on the issue. The anachronism of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act should be removed from the statute. It does not alter the fact we are aware of the abject abdication by the government of its responsibility with respect to the ownership of land in this province by corporations.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thrust of the remarks of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). As I understand our existing corporation law, corporations can only hold land for actual use or occupation or carrying on a business in this province.

Probably in this province we should at least have a better information base than we do as to land holding. In that context, perhaps some additional initiatives are required. This is a very important subject. It is a matter of equal interest to members on this side of the House, I can assure the member for Riverdale. At the same time, we also recognize that we are a province and country that requires foreign investment. We do not want to create the impression that foreign investors are unwelcome.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated in the introduction of this bill, this is just to extend the unified family court in Hamilton-Wentworth and place it on a permanent basis.

I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has expressed some interest in having access to any evaluations that have been done in so far as the unified family court is concerned. My information is that an independent evaluation has been done. It is a very positive evaluation, but it is true that it has not yet been released. We wish to release it, but under the terms of our agreement with the federal government, that agreement which led to the creation of the unified family court in Hamilton-Wentworth, we require consent to the release from the federal government. We are presently seeking that consent and, I hope, will obtain it as quickly as possible, because we think it should become a public document.

As I stated at the introduction of this legislation, the unified family court has received a great deal of acceptance in the Hamilton-Wentworth area by the public and the profession, and it is serving a useful purpose. Obviously, the desirability of trying all family disputes within the framework of one court is the goal throughout the province. We are optimistic that an early amendment to the federal constitution will be obtained in order to achieve this without having to go through the rather awkward model of the Hamilton-Wentworth unified family court. All provinces and the federal government agreed to such an amendment in the summer of 1980. I do not believe there has been any change in that respect.

Mr. Elston: The change of government didn't make any difference?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I think the change of government occurred before then.

I want to introduce a bill today that is a companion piece of legislation to the Unified Family Court Amendment Act. That is a bill entitled An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act. This is simply to make it clear this is a housekeeping amendment in order not to revive the former family court in Hamilton-Wentworth. The way the provincial family court is structured we require this amendment; otherwise the former family court would be revived. What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to the introduction of this companion piece of legislation.

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

12:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that this amendment is necessary so we will have only one family court in Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Deputy Speaker: On the second reading, then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To revert back to second reading of Bill 135.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I think that is fine. I would like to see a copy of the wording of it, that is all.

The Deputy Speaker: Are we on second reading, member for Huron-Bruce?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have no concerns, subject to the provisions of the rules that this bill can be proceeded with at the same time as the bill we are now dealing with through its various stages. But I am guided by whatever the rules require.

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, you hit your microphone, and I missed the part where you said something about the rules.

Mr. Renwick: I will try to avoid that this time. My point of order is that because this bill is obviously a necessary companion piece to the bill that is presently before us, for the reasons just stated by the Attorney General, I have no objection, if the rules permit, to processing this bill through the assembly today.

The Deputy Speaker: I would imagine that has unanimous consent.

Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The Deputy Speaker: Just for the sake of convenience, let us continue discussion on the second reading of Bill 135. Then if we would like to revert, the Clerk advises me, we can call the other. So, speaking to Bill 135, then.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, a worthwhile project has been developed in Hamilton-Wentworth with respect to the unified family court. Like my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), I look forward to the reports that are to be made available to us to follow up on the very important work being done there.

When I was in university one of the people who was involved with the development of the unified court system, His Honour Judge Thomson, often spoke about the work that was being done. I followed the development of the program through his career and participation, and I looked forward to having something brought before us much sooner than there has been opportunity for from the important experiment that has been taking place in Hamilton.

As is the case with a number of us from the smaller areas, we are likely to be the last to realize the benefits of the very important work that is going on. I want to ask the Attorney General to carry on his efforts to get permission to have the reported material made available to us so we can get on with the very important job we were discussing even yesterday in the estimates of the Justice secretariat, that is, to make a society in Ontario in which everyone can participate on an equal and fair footing throughout the province.

It seems to me that when we have programs like this spotted in various areas, some of us who are outside the general flow of the vanguard of developments in the administration of justice and other fields often are left until the very end, and often the members of the professions in those areas have to bear the brunt of the bad publicity that comes from the fact that there are waiting lists because there are few staff and only a few sorts of procedures available to us there.

I want to commend the Attorney General for bringing in this piece of legislation, as with all the others. In this case, if this were not before us we would end up with no unified court at all. Maybe we should be dealing with some of these matters a little more quickly than we have been recently. That is probably the only complaint I have. There are a number of housekeeping issues that still await us in the ministry, particularly with respect to the issues I raised earlier about other areas, outside Metropolitan Toronto.

I also want to say it is a pleasure to see that the minister, in this legislation, is making sure we do not fall behind in the development of the laws which we are making available to other court jurisdictions -- I make this comment with specific reference to the availability of the Children's Law Reform Act, which I am quite sure we will be getting to -- and also in implementing the programs which will allow the enforcement of garnishees and other such orders through this particular court.

I realize how difficult a task it is to keep up with all of the various court systems and to try to make sure all of the orders, agreements and so on are enforceable here, there and everywhere through all our court systems. Perhaps that is a reflection of the problem we are having from the standpoint of operating a number of partially disjointed experimental-type programs throughout the province.

Perhaps when we are able to put everything together in a concerted province-wide program we will be much better off and will be able to have all of the practitioners in the province being able to operate under the same set of rules, and not being penalized, for instance, if they happen to live in the riding of Huron-Bruce and must then drop down to the regional municipality of Hamilton to conduct a case where a former resident may have decided to go. I look forward to the time when we standardize those administrative procedures to allow all Ontario citizens an opportunity to participate in the system on an equal footing.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has referred to a matter which I raised in the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Justice, yesterday, about my concern that before we are asked to continue indefinitely these experimental or project-type courts, which are put before us as experimental courts and developmental courts and courts which are definitely projects of law reform in the administration of the courts, we should have the commitment of the government that we will get the evaluation reports.

I am not going to elaborate any further on the point, but I am going to ask, to stress the point I want to make, that the bill go into committee of the whole House so that I can move an amendment to section 6 to provide that this act be repealed on July 1, 1983, to give the Attorney General an opportunity to table in the assembly for consideration by the members of the House, particularly by the members from the Hamilton area in which the court exercises its jurisdiction, to decide whether the evaluation indicates that the court should be continued.

I find it difficult to comprehend that the confidentiality of this matter as between the provincial government and the federal government would refuse the Attorney General the opportunity to share that evaluation with the House. I think it is wrong in principle for the Attorney General to introduce into this assembly a project with a limited duration to reform a court and expect the House, without any further explanation, to accept his word that it is operating very well and agree to make the court a permanent part of the court system of the province.

I have no special knowledge, of course -- I never know anything about the government's plans -- but it would appear to me that in all likelihood we will receive a bill one of these days to provide for unified family courts in each of the judicial districts in the province following along this kind of model. We will have the discussion again, and we will be told that it is the Hamilton-Wentworth project which has foreshadowed the extension of these courts across the province; and in some strange way as an assembly we will never have considered, either in the House or in committee of the whole House, the evaluation study to determine whether it is or is not an improvement in the administration of justice.

12:30 p.m.

I am a sceptic about the improvement in the administration of the court. It is very easy to do some institutional juggling in the courts of this province and then indicate, "It must be better now it is unified than it would have been if it had not been unified." Everybody knows that on the surface the concept of the unified court is a good one.

The institutionalized arrangements and the conferring of a centralized form of jurisdiction in the question of the appointment of the judges, the control of the province with respect to the federal government over the appointment of those judges, the way in which the procedures are expedited in the courts, the processes of the courts, whether the satisfaction of the claimants and the defendants or the respondents in those courts are being satisfactorily met, and whether the vexed questions which led to the experiment are solved by the court, are matters which should not be left to the casual introduction of a bill such as this in the assembly.

There is no point in conducting experiments to change the court system of this province unless this assembly is satisfied the process is useful.

I am not one for looking back into history, but everyone knows that the process of reforming the courts puts all the judges in this province on edge. They get very anxious and nervous about what is happening.

Since the previous Attorney General lost his seat in the cabinet over his version of reform of the court system, the method adopted by this Attorney General was to establish certain experimental projects. If they became part of the woodwork, then he would make them permanent. I assume shortly in this parliament we are going to have an indication that the unified family court is a concept which should be spread right across the province.

The issues are too important. The project and the experiment is a vital and significant one. For this assembly to stand idly by and say, "Yes, of course we will amend the bill to provide that this is now a permanent court in the province, without any consideration of the report, is a matter of principle to me, if there is in this day and age a matter of principle.

To emphasize my point, I will ask that the bill go to committee of the whole House. I will move that the life of this court be extended, not indefinitely but for one year in order that an appropriate committee of this House can receive the evaluation report and have it considered, as I believe it appropriately should be, by the standing committee on administration of justice to see whether all the good things that were forecast for the experiment are achieved.

In scientific terms, the hypothesis of a unified court is a useful hypothesis. Its value as a final solution of the problem of the family court jurisdictions, dispersed as they were among a number of courts, depends upon an evaluation of the success of that process.

I have spoken rather briefly but, I suppose because of the nature of the issue I have raised, rather at length, to let the Attorney General know I am not satisfied with it. I do not know what his intentions are with respect to the other experimental project which exists in Metropolitan Toronto in Scarborough. I believe it is called the provincial civil jurisdiction court, which was an experiment to try to deal with the vexed questions of small claims in a special context to see whether it would work in a better way than the small claims courts are working, and whether it should be developed on a pilot project basis for extension across the province.

I would say to the Attorney General, to the extent I can give him any warning at all, perhaps I will call my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) in to support me if it is necessary to delay the passage of that bill when the time comes until we get an evaluation report on that part.

Mr. Elston: You are really only requesting full debate on it if you want the member for Rainy River to come in.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. Whatever point I have to make, I believe I have made it.

The remainder of the provisions of Bill 135 appear to me to merit consideration. I may say to the Attorney General that our party is totally in support of the concept as it was originally put before us. The records of the original debate, which I have read and reread, and of the debate on the amendment to the bill a couple of years ago when we extended it for a further period of time, amply indicate the position of this party and its support of the concept. My point is simply that we are not going to give the Attorney General a blank cheque to make this court a permanent feature of the judicial system of the province without an opportunity to consider the report.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly support the amendment my colleague the member for Riverdale proposes to move in committee. That would be to defer acceptance of the extension until such time as we do get an evaluation report. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke with this legislation. We have heard that the unified family court has been doing some useful work in Hamilton, but we do not have the official evaluation that was expected at the end of the five-year period. I do not know if the deadline is so imminent that we cannot wait for that evaluation.

I would like to ask the Attorney General to comment on the statement by one of his senior law officers, Mr. Chester of the policy development division, before the standing committee on social development on May 11. He stated: "There is also the possibility of extending the project on a designated area basis across the province in much the same way as we have extended bilingual court services, for example. Where we have the capacity and capability, then it will be extended by order in council, but that is only one option at the present moment."

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether the government does have the option of extending it across the province. Does it not also have the option of extending the present experiment for a further time by order in council if the deadline should come before this House gets an opportunity to discuss the evaluation report? I certainly feel this House should have an opportunity to discuss the whole concept of the unified family court and where it fits into our judicial system. We should also have some sort of position from the government on whether it intends to extend this principle to the whole province, if the evaluation report is favourable, and what staging it plans for this extension.

If, in this legislation, the government is simply thinking of carrying on what is really a token pilot project for an indefinite period and not extending the principle, if the principle is found to be acceptable, then I think we are short-changing our justice system. We should have some statement from the government at the time we consider the extension. That is why I think it is worth while to change this bill until such time as we get the evaluation.

I would like to point out that the problem of violence in the family is a matter of great interest these days, as I am sure all members know. We have had a report from a federal committee stating that one in 10 women suffer battering in the home at some time in their lives and that very few convictions are obtained under the Criminal Code. The present court system does not really support them adequately in prosecuting or preventing this kind of violence.

12:40 p.m.

As members may recall, I have placed a resolution on the Order Paper calling for a study of the question of violence in the family, including a review of the court system and its effect in dealing with this very serious problem. The standing committee on social development has undertaken to hold public hearings this summer.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, speaking to the bill --

Ms. Bryden: I am speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker, because a unified family court should be part of the discussions that the social development committee will be holding this summer. Before those hearings are held, we would like to have some statement from the government on its intentions in developing the unified family court system; but first we would like to have the evaluation report. I hope the minister will urge the federal government to get that evaluation report released before those hearings are held. Then we can have a much better discussion on the role of the unified family court in the prevention of violence.

I also want to draw the attention of the Attorney General to another statement Mr. Chester made before the committee on May 11, when we were discussing the constitutional problem. He did say he thought there was a serious constitutional problem which might prevent the extension of the unified family court throughout the province.

I asked him specifically, "Do you really feel that there are constitutional barriers in the way of extending the unified court system throughout Ontario, or are we fairly free to go ahead and extend it?" Mr. Chester replied, "As I understand it, there are some very real constitutional restraints on the ability of the province, even through federal and provincial bilateral agreements such as the one which led to the establishment of the unified family court in Hamilton-Wentworth; there were some very real problems in structuring that across the province."

While the Attorney General did mention the constitutional question, I think it is something that should be very actively looked at so we are sure that if we do want to extend this system, we do have the constitutional situation where we can do it and do not have to rely on bilateral agreements as we did in the Hamilton-Wentworth case.

I know that the situation regarding the position of battered women is becoming so acute that interval houses or transition houses are springing up all over the province to assist those women who are battered; they also need assistance in the courts. Therefore, we should be looking at all measures that can improve the court system; not just the unified family court, but other measures as well. We also should be considering very carefully the role that the unified family court can play in solving the problem of those women who are suffering assault and are not being protected by our present law system.

I hope the Attorney General will reply to these comments.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to having this bill go to committee of the whole House, but I would be very reluctant to accept the amendment restricting the life of this court to yet another year.

We are certainly prepared to share any evaluation of the project with the members opposite. I would say, with great respect, if the members opposite had shown the slightest interest in any evaluation that had been done, we would have been very happy to share any information we had. For example, if this interest had been expressed after the introduction of the legislation, we probably could have expedited the consent of the federal government to release the evaluation, which we know will be forthcoming.

Because of the widespread acceptance of the Hamilton project, as the public and the professionals have already stated, I did not anticipate that this might become an issue. I can assure the members opposite that they will find the evaluation a very positive document. We expect that the evaluation will be released publicly before third reading of this legislation, but until that time we are prepared to let any member of the Legislature review the evaluation -- although by the terms of our agreement we are actually unable to release it.

With respect to the concept spreading throughout the province, this is not something that can be done by order in council. The united family court concept can be spread into other areas of the province only by legislation which we do not have at present because we are awaiting a change to our Constitution. It would not be in the interest of the administration of justice in this province to have a family court bench in the province that is fragmented, by which I mean a number of the judges having resigned their provincial court appointments and received federal appointments, while others have not gone that route.

The honourable member talks about constitutional difficulties. It is true there is a constitutional impediment we have had to wrestle with over the years -- and it led to the unique model that came into existence in Hamilton-Went- worth -- which is section 96 of the Constitution, with respect to the full family court jurisdiction of the court. This was the one area in which we received total and absolute agreement from all of the provinces and the federal government in the summer of 1980 leading up to the first ministers' conference of September 1980. There has been no change in attitude so far as I have been able to detect.

I would like to state at this time that it is my intention and goal to create unified family courts throughout the province, because this will result in a much greater degree of accessibility, so far as the public is concerned, to the administration of justice in the crucial area of family disputes. As soon as we have the constitutional authority to bring in the appropriate legislation so as to cloak our provincial family courts with this jurisdiction, it will be done. As far as I am concerned, it is a high priority of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. McMurtry has moved second reading of Bill 135.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

12:50 p.m.

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we support the idea behind this piece of legislation. Obviously it would cause some mild degree of headache to the Attorney General if he had the existence of the provincial court pop up in the middle of developments in Hamilton.

In relation to the arguments raised by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) with respect to withholding approval of the unified family court's existence for more than a one-year period, I think in looking at this piece of legislation, and for the degree of certainty we should have, we should get on with the housecleaning of legislation as quickly as we can so people can be sure what sort of system is going to be available to them in the areas where the unified family court has been in existence, so that we can do --

Mr. Laughren: House-cleaning or housekeeping?

Mr. Elston: Both. This obviously is housecleaning inasmuch as I suppose we are going to dispose of -- I was going to say one of the anachronisms, but it is not that quite yet, because we have not dealt with the final reading of the Unified Family Court Amendment Act in that area. But we will lend our support to this legislation, bearing in mind that we would have some problems if, for some reason, the amendment which is to be put by the member for Riverdale actually survives its introduction in committee of the whole House with respect to the previously discussed bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am quite content that the bill go past second reading. This is the companion bill to that which the Attorney General introduced into the House a few minutes ago, obviously to eliminate an oversight, and I have no problem with the bill.

I just want to compliment the Attorney General on the good try to shift the blame to us for not asking for the evaluation report. I was just examining the outside cover of the bill -- perhaps the minister had not had a chance to look at it -- which says first reading of the bill was on June 3. This is now June 11. Perhaps there is some delay. Perhaps he would have been able to extract the report.

I would like to put it right back in his court. The sooner he gets the report, the better it will be for us. I understand he is going to have it before this bill gets third reading. Third reading will have to be before June 30, as I understand it, or the court will disappear the next day. If he still has any communication with the federal government perhaps he could arrange for it to be sent down over the weekend and we could look at it on Monday.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

CHARITIES ACCOUNTING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

On section 1:

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subsection 6b. I do not know if there are any amendments before that.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any proposed amendments up to but not including subsection 6b?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment on the first section. I would like the Attorney General to confirm my understanding that this bill, the Charities Accounting Amendment Act, does not affect in any way any of the capacities and powers that are granted by this assembly under chapter 448 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, the Religious Organizations Lands Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question about the definition of charities and things; it is a very broad area that we get into.

I wonder whether the Attorney General would care to comment clause 6a: "'charitable purpose' means, (iv) any purpose beneficial to the community." I wonder whether or not he is going to develop any sort of policy to help us, as members of the legal profession or whatever, determine what might and what might not be of benefit to the community, because in setting up a charitable organization I can think of developing all sorts of programs that we might get into.

Is he thinking of "community" as a municipality or perhaps as a group of municipalities? And what is his thinking around "any purpose beneficial"?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar question of the Attorney General on this question of the Charities Accounting Amendment Act. I did not really expect to get into it, but I would like to do so very briefly.

Would the Attorney General consider the Riverdale New Democratic Party riding association as a charitable purpose that is being served in Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly not under the definition the member for Huron-Bruce just stated.

Mr. Renwick: It is a purpose obviously beneficial to the community.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that the words "use and occupation" be deleted from the following provisions of the act as contained in the bill: the second line of clause 6b(1), the first line of clause 6b(2)(b); the first line of clause 6b(2)(c), the first line of clause 6b(5)(b); the first line of clause 6b(5)(c), the second, third and fourth lines of subsection 6b(6); and that the words "use or occupation" be substituted therefor in each instance.

And further that the words "used and occupied" be deleted from the following provisions of the act as contained in the bill: the first line of clause 6b(2)(a) and the first line of clause 6b(5)(a); and that the words "used and used or occupied" be substituted therefor in each instance.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the matters that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Attorney General, and he was kind enough to introduce me to Mr. Perkins, who I might note was well on the job and prepared to go ahead with these suggested changes, because we were concerned about not only having to "use" but also to "occupy," as the previous wording of the section indicated. We will support the amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 3, as amended, reported.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

June 11, 1982