Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to point out that the apples on all members' desks are a little tradition I have tried to carry forward since becoming a member of the Legislature. They are a product of Vittoria in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, the great part of southwestern Ontario. I thought I would add a little colour to the Legislature as we wind down for the Christmas season. I wish all members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Mr. Speaker: I thank you very much on behalf of all the members. I believe we will enjoy them no end. I was going to mention that we all have candy canes deposited on our desks as well, courtesy of Carrie Neale. Carrie is one of our pages, and I think we owe her a vote of thanks.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder whether you have had an opportunity since yesterday to speak to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in view of the fact that he is continuing to flout section 81(d) of the standing orders in regard to answering written questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not spoken to the minister. As you know, that is really not my role. However, as you may be aware, I did point out to him very directly and forcefully yesterday that he no doubt would take note. I hope he will respond to your request very quickly.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order, and I hope it is something the standing committee on procedural affairs will recommend when we send all our suggestions to it.

Today, for instance, if ministers have a reply to a question asked previously in the House, could you inquire before they rise whether it is going to be a lengthy answer? We in the opposition feel that sometimes the answer to a question asked previously is rather lengthy. It would be a great advantage, if there are going to be lengthy answers, if the ministers indicated that and perhaps reverted to statements for a couple of minutes or something of that nature.

Mr. Speaker: I have made inquiries for the information of all honourable members. I have allowed those responses which, in the view of the ministers, have been rather urgent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling the Ontario Canada task force report on the operations of Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. in Sudbury. The task force was formed in May 1980 to study the two mining and smelting concerns in the Sudbury area. It consisted of representatives from both the federal and provincial governments as well as members of the public. The task force's mandate was clear and concise: to investigate air pollution abatement options for the companies and the effects of these options on Sudbury's people, economy and environment.

During its investigation, the task force reviewed Inco and Falconbridge air emissions and smelting processes in relation to abatement options. It examined a number of programs to control emissions and their resultant environmental, social and economic consequences to the firms and to the community. Also included in the review were the roles of both the federal and provincial governments in legislating pollution control.

The report does not make specific recommendations, but it presents several major conclusions that provide a basis for the development and evaluation of policy options, including the establishment of acceptable emission levels.

The task force reviewed 54 abatement options for Inco and eight options for Falconbridge and concluded that substantial reductions of emissions of sulphur dioxide and particulate material are technically feasible. These reductions could be achieved through modification and modernization of smelting processes, coupled with further treatment of sulphur dioxide gas.

The task force looked at three major sources of sulphur dioxide emissions at Inco, the copper circuit, the nickel smelter and the remaining sources. As a base point, the task force considered Inco's emission levels as being the 1983 expected level of 1,769 metric tons per day, or 1,950 tons per day, and developed a range of projected programs, costs and reduction benefits.

One program calls for modification of Inco's copper circuit, which would reduce the company's daily emission levels by 600 metric tons. The total cost of this modification is estimated at $75 million and would take about three years.

A second major area of emission control would be modernization of the Inco nickel smelter. This would result in a reduction of emission levels to between 800 and 1,200 metric tons per day. The cost of this program is estimated at $260 million to $430 million and would take from five to nine years to complete.

A combination of modifications to the copper circuit and modernization of the nickel smelter would reduce daily sulphur dioxide emissions to 500 metric tons and could be achieved within 10 years at an estimated cost of $335 to $500 million. At this point weak gas treatment, scrubbing, could be installed and emission levels could be further reduced to approximately 50 metric tons per day at an additional cost of about $184 million.

The task force also acknowledged that Inco could incur additional costs of up to $300 million because of time factors and added changes to existing facilities to ensure maximum advantages from modernization.

2:10 p.m.

The task force also reviewed abatement options for Falconbridge, which has a more modern smelting operation. Therefore, fewer and less expensive options were open for review. Upgrading of the smelter operation by three abatement programs could reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to about 90 metric tons per day from a current allowable limit of 422 metric tons. Further gas treatments could reduce emissions to less than 50 metric tons per day at a total estimated cost of more than $60 million.

While the task force identified the emission levels technically feasible, it made no judgement on which level of reduction would be necessary to achieve the desired environmental results. The task force estimated that reductions would be phased in over a three- to 12-year period.

The net gain for Sudbury's environment should these reductions take place would be small, but sulphur dioxide emission reductions from the Sudbury smelters no doubt will mean environmental improvement to other provinces and states. Without similar reductions from sources in other jurisdictions, damage to Ontario's sensitive areas as well as to other provinces and states will continue.

Sudbury and the two companies are obviously suffering from current depressed economic conditions and world metal markets. The companies have suspended production, and this has led to both permanent and temporary layoffs of workers. Therefore, the need for environmental improvement must be considered in the context of present economic conditions, including future earnings and the ability of the companies to shoulder the costs of abatement and modernization.

None the less, the findings of the task force suggest that improvements in the smelting process which contribute to reductions in emissions will also result in other efficiencies and savings to the companies. In addition, the task force noted that implementation of process changes at Inco would result in a significant number of construction-related job opportunities. The installation of a more efficient smelting process could result in 600 to 800 fewer jobs.

The province has jurisdiction to regulate local sources as they affect Ontario, and the federal government has the responsibility for transboundary air pollution between provinces and nations. Any solution to Sudbury's environmental and related economic problems requires substantial participation by the federal government. Therefore, I intend to pursue this report with the Minister of Environment Canada and his associates as well as with my cabinet colleagues of other Ontario ministries that are concerned.

I think it is apparent that the solution to Sudbury's complex problems will require the combined efforts of the companies, the federal government and the Ontario government and the support of the people of Sudbury. Given time and determination, I am confident we can accomplish this shared goal.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, later today I shall be introducing a bill entitled An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Ontario universities traditionally have enjoyed autonomy in the management of their financial and academic affairs. Now, however, the major portion of their operating funds comes from the public purse. Government therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the universities are adequately accountable for the expenditure of these public funds and that the future viability of the universities is not jeopardized by incurring unmanageable deficits.

A report by the Committee of Financial Officers, Universities of Ontario indicates that increasing numbers of institutions incurred operating deficits for the 1981-82 fiscal year and that several institutions have cumulative operating deficits for 1981-82 in excess of $1 million. Such situations could lead ultimately to financial insolvency.

On February 18, 1982, I announced that the government would not provide extraordinary funding for institutions that incur unmanageable deficits. I then asked the Ontario Council on University Affairs to advise the government on the most appropriate legislative method to prevent universities from incurring unmanageable deficits and to eliminate or reduce any that have been incurred. Council responded with advisory memorandum 82-V, Restrictions on University Deficits. The advice contained in this advisory memorandum forms the basis for the legislation.

The legislation will prohibit universities from incurring cumulative deficits in their operating fund accounts in excess of two per cent of their operating revenue for the year. While I believe that universities should strive to avoid incurring deficits of any size, the two per cent limit will allow them some flexibility in the management of their financial affairs. At the same time it will prevent them from incurring deficits that could threaten their future viability.

It is expected that each university, as an autonomous body, will be responsible for deciding how best to live within the legislative restriction on university deficits.

Intervention -- that is, the appointment of an investigator or university supervisor as provided for in the legislation -- will occur only when universities are unable or unwilling to reduce unmanageable deficits.

SPEECH BY MORLEY ROSENBERG

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information: I am sure all members will want to know this, particularly at Christmas time, in the spirit of generosity most of us have towards our friends in wanting to help those we love at this time of the year. It is a notice in the December 20 Background, distributed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, entitled "Ontario Parks Association." It says: "The association will hold its annual educational seminar at Humber College in Rexdale, March 10 to 11, 1983. Morley Rosenberg of Kitchener is to speak on the theme "Survival -- Pulling Together.''

I am sure all members will want to be there.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a report on the organization, management and financial management aspects of the Ontario Humane Society. The report by Price Waterhouse Associates follows an assessment done by staff from the Ministry of the Solicitor General on the operations of the society.

The members will recall that the ministry's assessment was instituted following a number of public statements made about the society through the media, through letters to the ministry or through contact with members of this Legislature.

One of the recommendations from the assessment was that a management consultant firm should be engaged to advise on appropriate action and bylaw amendments. The firm would study organizational, financial and management issues raised by the assessment. It would also look at the issue of the composition of the board of directors and classes of membership.

Price Waterhouse Associates has conducted a thorough study of the operations of the Ontario Humane Society and has come up with a number of recommendations. These recommendations are being studied by my staff, and the report has been forwarded to members of the board of the Ontario Humane Society for their consideration. Shortly, we will be conducting further meetings with the board to discuss the implications of the report.

This review was conducted because my ministry is responsible for the administration of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The statute creates the Ontario Humane Society and authorizes it to perform law enforcement functions in relation to cruelty to animals. Obviously the ministry has an interest in seeing that these functions are properly carried out.

We will continue to advise and assist the society as it carries out its crucial work. The recommendations of Price Waterhouse Associates will be given careful consideration. Copies of the Price Waterhouse report are being made available to all members, all affiliates of the Ontario Humane Society and other interested groups.

POLICE ACT AMENDING REGULATION

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of an amending regulation under the Police Act authorizing the use of an open style of safety holster by Ontario police forces. The current regulation requires a full flap cover on the holster. This is being changed so that the Ontario Police Commission can authorize other types of holsters as an option to the full flap cover.

In 1980, Judge John Greenwood prepared a report on the use of firearms by police officers. Judge Greenwood was impressed by gun holsters designed so that a revolver cannot be removed from the holster unless released by a thumb break by the person wearing the holster.

He said that through the use of a locking mechanism, the firearm will not be dislodged during pursuit of a suspect or during a scuffle. The safety holster also fits snugly to the body, so it will not hinder active police duties.

The design of these holsters, however, requires that the butt of the revolver be exposed to public view. The holsters were therefore unavailable to police in Ontario by virtue of a regulation under the Police Act which provides, "The revolver shall be carried in a holster with a full flap cover, or be otherwise concealed."

Judge Greenwood recommended that the new, secure holster be tried on an experimental basis. As a result, 38 police forces were authorized by the Ontario Police Commission to use the new safety holsters on a trial basis.

The study was carried out under the auspices of the Ontario Police Commission, and all groups within the police community were represented. The report strongly favours the new holsters, both for the safety of the officers and the public.

2:20 p.m.

There was little or no adverse reaction from the public to the forces testing the new holsters. Indeed, the holster was used by the Ontario Provincial Police at Ontario Place with no adverse comment whatsoever. Therefore, the amended regulation still permits a holster that is covered by a full flap. The other option, where the police governing authority applies to the Ontario Police Commission and gets approval, is to adopt the open, secure safety type of holster.

I want to emphasize that the option of whether to use the open-style holster or to continue with the flap style will be left to the local police governing authority. However, the open-style holster must be approved first by the Ontario Police Commission.

LAW REFORM ACT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce -- as I suggested to the leader of the New Democratic Party last week I would be -- that I will be conducting an extensive review of the Family Law Reform Act as we approach the fifth anniversary of the passage of that legislation.

Honourable members may recall the deplorable state of the law relating to support and sharing of property before 1978. My predecessors engaged in extensive consultations with the people of this province from 1973 to 1975 to develop a comprehensive reform of all our family law.

We began our legislative program with changes to the law of estates, now found in the Succession Law Reform Act, and with the abolition of the status of illegitimacy in the Children's Law Reform Act. We introduced a Family Law Reform Act, which represented an enormous advance in our legal system, as it ended any legal distinctions between married women and men and equalized them in the eyes of the law. Just this year, we enacted the custody provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, and soon we hope to complete the family law reform process with legislation concerning names and changes of names.

The Family Law Reform Act has been a notable success overall, as it has provided substantial sharing of property by spouses who suffer a marriage breakdown and has recognized the rights and needs of spouses and children in the support awards. One only has to think of such landmark decisions in the courts as the Silverstein, Bregman and Weir cases, in which the homemaker spouse received a very substantial property award, to see what an enormous improvement the Family Law Reform Act's provisions are over our old law of family property. Even in the Leatherdale case, which has provoked much comment, the wife received half the family assets plus a substantial portion of the nonfamily assets.

Now that we have had almost five years' experience with our Family Law Reform Act, however, it is time to pause and consider whether there may be some improvements indicated by the passage of time and the wisdom of hindsight.

I understand the federal Minister of Justice is about to undertake a review of the Divorce Act, which is now more than 15 years old. There is no doubt that changes in society have left the Divorce Act behind, and I commend my federal colleague for initiating this process.

Perhaps outlooks in Ontario have changed in the past five years on how our matrimonial property and support rules should be structured. I am proud to say we were the first of the common-law provinces to bring family law reform into effect. Now we will be the first to review and to reassess, and it may be that the law of our sister provinces, which came along later than our own, will be of some benefit to us.

I am inviting written submissions from any interested person or organizations on any aspect of the Family Law Reform Act they feel is in need of amendment. I would particularly like to hear from such organizations as the Ontario Status of Women Council, the family law subsection of the Canadian Bar Association and, of course, any other group with particular experience or expertise in family law.

Any proposal for reform of any part of the act will be carefully considered, but there are some areas in particular where I seek comments: (1) Are the provisions for sharing of nonfamily assets in need of adjustment? (2) Is the definition of family assets adequate? (3) Should the legislation be extended to provide for a guaranteed share of property on the death of one of the spouses? (4) Are the protections of the act for the matrimonial home sufficient? (5) Are there any problems in the support provisions of the act?

It is my wish that all briefs be sent to me by March 1, 1983. I will then review the briefs with officials of my ministry, and it is my hope that I will be able to incorporate any meritorious suggestions in a bill to be brought before the House within one year from that time.

The government remains committed to the principles that marriage is a partnership of equals and that, if a marriage comes to an end, the law should ensure the spouses are treated fairly and equitably. We must seek to reflect the views of our people in our matrimonial law, because if we do not, the result will be only that couples will contract out of the law or even opt out of marriage. With this review we are seeking to keep our Family Law Reform Act in harmony with the needs and wishes of the people of Ontario.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 I made a statement to this House on the actions the government was taking to deal with a number of problems generally related to residential tenancies. These included particularly the problems related to the potential impact that the sale and refinancing of rental buildings has on the financing costs that may be considered by the Residential Tenancy Commission in the process of reviewing requests for rent increases.

At that time I clearly indicated that there was a need to look beyond the issue of the tenants' problems created by the sale of rental buildings to the broader issues involved, and the actions announced on November 16 therefore dealt with a broad range of issues.

I announced the intent to introduce a bill to restrain rent increases that were being justified by a pass-through of the cost of profit-taking, and this bill now is before the House today.

I also announced that the Residential Tenancy Commission had developed and would be applying immediately new guidelines dealing with the problems arising out of the financing costs of sales and resales of residential rental properties.

I announced the appointment of Stuart D. Thom, QC, under the Public Inquiries Act to carry out a review of the existing laws regulating residential rental properties.

I announced that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be carrying out and making available to Mr. Thom a thorough analysis of the overall housing market, including conditions prevailing in both rental and private housing areas.

Finally, I announced the appointment of I ames A. Morrison, FCA, of the firm of Touche Ross to make a special examination and audit of the books, accounts and securities and to inquire generally into the conduct of the business of several loan corporations and trust corporations in accordance with section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

It is in respect of this last initiative that I wish to make a further statement today.

Members will recall that Mr. Morrison was appointed to examine five corporations that are registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and that one of the main areas of investigation was to determine whether any of these corporations were lending money secured by mortgages on properties in amounts in excess of 75 per cent of the value of the properties.

In reviewing the options that were available to me as minister and to the registrar appointed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, it became apparent to me that the act may not contain the powers to deal adequately with the economic times and changes in business practices that now confront us. My staff for some time has been working on a substantial revision to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to ensure that it is suited to the much more complex business world we face today.

In this regard, members may recall that an unnumbered bill proposing amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act was put out for discussion by my predecessor. It had been our intention to introduce a bill, at least for first reading, this fall. However, I now believe that we should be addressing a broader range of issues than was covered in that unnumbered bill. I also now believe that the most appropriate method of proceeding would be by issuing a white paper to encourage and to obtain general public discussion of our proposals.

In reaching this conclusion, I have been mindful of the need to proceed prudently in an area that involves the investment of large amounts of money by a great many depositors and shareholders. It is not an area of legislation where one makes snap judgements to change fundamental principles or relationships that have been followed and applied for years.

2:30 p.m.

To cite but one example of the complexity of what may at first blush appear to be a simple issue, I would mention the word "value." I spoke earlier about the question of mortgages exceeding 75 per cent of the value of the property securing them.

What does "value" mean in this context? Does it mean "fair market value" and, if so, how do you take into account elements of "value" that may be attributed to tax benefits that may arise out of the way the property is financed? I can assure the House that even clarifying the meaning of this one word is not a simple matter to resolve. Nor is it easy to predict the practical consequences of any particular meaning that may be put upon it.

However, notwithstanding the risks associated with legislation in this field that has not been subjected to wide public review, I have concluded that at this time it is prudent to introduce legislation to deal with two specific areas in which the powers contained in the existing act are, in my view, inadequate.

In proceeding with the legislation today, I wish to emphasize that Ontario is served by a well-managed and long-established loan and trust industry. Most of the loan and trust corporations should not be affected by the proposed amendments. We hope the mere existence of the new powers will be sufficient to persuade any companies that might otherwise be affected by the proposed amendments to so order their affairs that they avoid the need for us to apply them.

However, we are aware of activity in the loan and trust field that, as a matter of prudent administration, should be subject to review and, where required by the public interest, controlled. In view of the length of time that will most likely be necessary for the preparation, circulation and review of the more extensive amendments to the act, I believe we should be proceeding with these amendments now.

Under the existing legislation, anyone wishing to incorporate a new loan or trust corporation must petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council and must establish to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that there exists a public necessity for the company, that the applicants are fit to discharge the duties of a trust or loan company in a way to command the confidence of the public and that the public convenience and advantage will be promoted by granting the powers applied for.

In contrast to these safeguards, there is no test of fitness when new owners acquire an existing trust or loan company. I believe there should be a review of the fitness of persons wishing to acquire an operating trust or loan company, particularly where the company is taking in deposits from the public.

As we have seen in recent weeks, business ventures can develop and apparently change direction very quickly. Since we are aware of interest being expressed in the acquisition of existing trust or loan companies, I believe it is appropriate that we move immediately to ensure that any further changes in control of these companies is subject to public review. The first major principle of the proposed legislation will provide for this new approval process.

I wish to draw particular attention to the fact that this new procedure to provide for an approval process in respect of the acquisition of existing trust or loan companies will take effect as of today and will apply to any transfer or issue of shares that has not yet been entered in the books of the corporation.

The other major principle of the proposed amendments will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to authorize the registrar to take possession and control of a trust or loan company in a more expeditious manner, and for a wider number of reasons, than is now possible under the existing act.

The amendments will also authorize the imposition of terms and conditions on the operations of a company where it is not considered necessary to take such possession and control. The new grounds for taking these actions recognize a number of circumstances where the public interest may require prompt action.

As I have already said today, it is our intention to review the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and to put out a white paper on those proposals. This process will permit a public review of those proposals I have just outlined, and should adjustments be advisable we will be able to bring them forward as part of the bill I would expect to have before this House next year.

Before ending this statement, I would like to return briefly to the subject of the special examination being conducted by I ames Morrison under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I will be in a position to report to the Legislature with regard to the Morrison special examination when this House reconvenes in January.

I want to make clear our determination as a government to find out the precise nature of the transactions involved. I want to make it perfectly clear that if the necessary information is not forthcoming from any of the companies involved in the Cadillac Fairview transactions, we will take the necessary steps to broaden that inquiry.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise in regard to the question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) yesterday concerning the agreement he signed with various Indian bands relating to fishing rights.

I think the minister may inadvertently have given the impression that both the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association were in accord with the agreement that was signed last Friday. I have spoken to people who attended the NOMA meeting, which some described as a shouting match, and to people in NOTOA. They are most distressed about what has happened and the process by which it has happened.

The minister promised he would table a copy of the agreement and I saw something go over to the table. I would hope he has also tabled a copy of the map, so that we will know what waters in the province we are talking about.

Finally, I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that these matters are of urgent importance to the Legislature and this minister, along with other members of the government, continue to flout the ability of members to do their job by providing these agreements in this Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MORTGAGE COMPANY TAKEOVERS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could the minister inform this House whether the act he referred to in his statement today, when passed, will deal with the following share transfers: (1) the takeover of Crown Trust by Greymac Credit; (2) the takeover of Greymac Trust by Crown Trust; (3) the takeover of Greymac Mortgage by a numbered company controlled by Mr. William Player?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that the first acquisition, that of Crown Trust by Greymac Credit, was by public offering and there is still an outstanding offer to minority shareholders. Since the transfer of that number of shares that have already been acquired has been registered on the books, I would not expect that would be involved in this legislation. However, I will review the whole matter for the member's information.

Second, the takeover of Greymac Trust by Crown Trust is not quite that. It would be classified as an acquisition or merger, and such acquisition or merger requires the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Third, on the issue of Greymac Mortgage, a federally incorporated company, again I would have to make inquiries to determine what stage of negotiations and what stage of contract that particular reported takeover is at.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may be aware that a member of my research staff spoke to an official in his ministry today concerning the takeover of Crown Trust by Greymac Credit. The official said they had checked the ministry file and had been unable to locate the necessary section 81 notice of when a takeover is going to transpire.

If that is indeed the case, will the minister not agree that if the appropriate notice has not been filed under the old section 81, then a share transfer has not been completed and the registrar has an obligation to bring this series of transactions under the new legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: All I can say is that this is an issue we will certainly be reviewing, but I cannot comment in any exact way on the question that has been put.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, given the kinds of powers the minister is now prepared to give the registrar and the cabinet, can he tell us why, at the same time he was moving on that front, he was not also prepared to move on the question of disclosure? Surely he would agree that, as far as the Morrison inquiry and other inquiries are concerned, the question of disclosure is quite fundamental. Why has he been so reluctant to move in that area?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the general issue of disclosure is related to the Corporations Information Act. The disclosure referred to in the bill that will be before the House later this afternoon does deal with some aspects where the registrar may require information concerning disclosure. As the member knows, the general issue of disclosure is one that would be considered primarily under the Corporations Information Act.

Mr. Peterson: With respect to the minister's statement, he has promised a white paper containing proposals for reform of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I want to be very clear that he has promised to this House that that white paper will go to an all-party committee of this House for a complete review. I assume my understanding is correct. In addition to that, I want to ask if the minister is prepared to let that committee review the behaviour or the performance of the financial institutions division of his ministry over the last year or two.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In answer to the first question, I am quite prepared to have either the white paper or the bill, if one is introduced next year, reviewed by a committee of this House.

The answer to the second question is no, and I think it is impertinent to ask it.

Mr. Roy: Can we review the minister's performance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would stack his performance against the member's any day of the week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Second question from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier sounds as if he has had lunch with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). He should settle down a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would rather have lunch with him than with the member.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, please.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier could not find anybody else to have lunch with. That is his problem.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please. Order.

DEATH AT ALLIED CHEMICAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the death last night at the Allied Chemical plant in Amherstburg. Apparently a worker operating a bulldozer for a company doing some type of diking work for Allied on a contractual basis lost his life early this morning when a dike gave way, immersing his bulldozer and himself in some chemical waste. I am sure the minister is aware of this. Can he tell the House if he has called the coroner to investigate the circumstances of this unfortunate death?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do have a preliminary report here. The sad part is that the last time I checked, the body had still not been located. Certainly every measure at our disposal will be used to investigate to the fullest this very tragic accident.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister advise his officials to determine in the course of their investigations whether there have been any breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Absolutely so. There is no doubt about that at all.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that this young man was working last night on a dike about which there is a question as to how strong it was because of the large amount of rain we have had in that area? Is he also aware that the construction company doing the work at this time is not the regular construction company?

There are real questions in people's minds as to whether the individual who died as a result of this tragedy was able, prepared or had the training to run that machine under those circumstances. Can the minister say very clearly to us now that he will order a coroner's inquest under these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the various points that the honourable member has brought forward. I do not believe I have the authority to order a coroner's inquest, but I do believe a coroner's inquest is mandatory in any event in circumstances of this nature.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should check section 10 of the act. I think he can request one.

The minister is aware of the industrial strife at the plant site recently because of the strike and the practice of the company of bringing in nonunion workers to perform the work at the plant. Can I ask the minister to investigate all of the circumstances attendant thereon and to ascertain if these abnormal circumstances contributed in any way to this most unfortunate tragedy?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have no hesitation in assuring the Leader of the Opposition that this will be done.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to the statement he made today and the legislation he is going to be bringing down this afternoon,

I would like the minister to focus his attention, if he could for a moment, on the question of valuation, which he deals with on page 3. Is the registrar going to be clarifying this situation with regard to valuation when it comes to looking at the activities of a number of companies in question? The minister says it is a highly debatable issue and one on which there are differing points of view; but I am sure he would agree that if the basis of valuation upon which a number of these companies have been lending money is questionable, it does cast doubt on the entire operation of some of these companies.

Is the registrar going to be laying down clearer guidelines than currently exist with respect to the question of the valuation of property?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the term "value" is not defined in the act and, as the honourable member knows, cannot be defined by regulation. The very issue of what value is, is being considered now in the special examination being carried out by Mr. Morrison.

Certainly, as I have already said, the issue of what value is will be included in the white paper, and at this time I really do not feel I should comment any further, nor am I prepared to agree with the member's remarks that there may be questionable practices of valuation going on at this time. Those are matters that are still under consideration.

Mr. Rae: My supplementary question relates to the very specific question involving Greymac and Crown Trust, and I heard the minister say -- and he can correct me if I am wrong -- that the reverse takeover would require the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council with respect to the takeover of Greymac Trust by Crown Trust.

Can the minister tell us his attitude to that takeover today? Surely he must have had some particular transactions in mind when he brought in this legislation, otherwise he would not have brought it in in such a hurry. Can he tell us what his attitude is to that transaction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, there are two parts to the honourable member's question, one of which is unrelated to it, because this legislation today does not in any way apply to the issue of amalgamations or mergers. There already are provisions in the existing Loan and Trust Corporations Act dealing with that. As I said before, such a merger requires the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and I am not presumptuous enough to decide what that council would determine in advance.

Mr. Rae: In the proposals that the government will be looking at in the future, will the government be considering two things: first, will it consider limits on the number of shares that any one person can hold in a trust company so that we do not get into this situation of increased concentration which exists in the industry right now and which poses a very real problem? Second, is the legislation going to consider the question of trust companies' shares in other businesses -- in other words, limitations on the ability of trust companies to engage in the ownership of other companies? Is the legislation going to deal with those two questions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot at this time tell the member exactly what would be in the white paper. Certainly the issue of limitation on the ownership of trust companies is an issue that is now up for discussion in the federal government's white paper, and one might wait to see what benefit can be obtained from that public review.

I cannot tell the member exactly what will be in the white paper, but I would expect that areas of interest and general importance to the industry will be raised for discussion in it.

2:50 p.m.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. It concerns severance pay and, among other things, the prospective closure of the CCM plant in Toronto, in the riding of York South.

Seeing that there was a commitment in the speech from the throne on March 9 of this year that the government would advance the Employment Standards Act in the area of protection of severance pay, can the minister tell us why nothing has been done, no changes have been announced in severance pay legislation? Why in particular has nothing been done in respect to those companies that are either facing bankruptcy or receivership?

I am sure the minister knows the very real hardships caused to workers of those companies when they take second place to the bank. Can the minister explain why there has been no action in that area?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has been in almost weekly contact with the federal government in respect to the proposed Bankruptcy Act, Bill C-12.

For a while it looked as if that bill would not get final reading this fall, but now we understand there is a good possibility it will. If this does go forward, we have assurances this will help address the problem the member is referring to.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister at least make an effort to report back as quickly as possible with respect to the CCM situation? Can he give the House the assurance that the workers at CCM will receive some severance pay and will not take second place to the bank and will not be entirely left out in the cold as a result of the purchase of some assets of the CCM firm by Procycle Inc.? Can he give us that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Certainly the employment standards branch has been very aggressive in attempting to protect workers' rights and the money owing to them in the various bankruptcies and receiverships that unfortunately have been taking place this past year. Every effort will be made to protect the rights of the workers in respect to CCM.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answers the minister just gave, is his ministry about to take any action on those companies that wind up leaving their employees owed considerable amounts of money and then turn around and start another company?

I am referring specifically to Imicon Construction of Burlington, which left owing its employees $130,000 and then the same people turned around and started another company called Imitech. The minister will recall I asked him once before about this type of situation. I understood that in fact something was happening, but it does not appear that it is.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the particular firm the member has referred to is being investigated at this very time under the Employment Standards Act. I would hope to have some information for him in that respect, possibly later this week or next week.

Mr. Rae: The fact remains that the minister, through the speech from the throne, made a promise to this House which has not been kept with respect to severance pay legislation.

I would simply ask the minister how he feels about the fact that from January 1981 to September 1982, of the 51,452 permanently laid off workers, only 3,421 were eligible for statutory severance pay in Ontario, and of these, 1,535 did not receive any severance because their firms were insolvent.

Does the minister not think it is now urgent for the government of Ontario to act to start protecting workers being affected by these bankruptcies and receiverships?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member used those figures not too long ago in the Legislature. I pointed out to him at that time that it certainly was a matter of concern and is something we are attempting to address.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that as of this date, and for many weeks and months prior to this date, no less an agency than the Province of Ontario Savings Office has been acting as an agent in the marketing of certificates of Greymac Mortgage and Seaway Trust?

For example, is the minister aware that when the senior citizens' club in the city of Pembroke went into the local savings office operated in the name of and by the province of Ontario, they were encouraged to take out a guaranteed investment certificate in the name of Seaway Trust, because, I might add, of the very attractive interest rates on Seaway Trust certificates which today are running about 2.5 to three percentage points above much of the rest of the market?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the provincial savings bank of Ontario offers GICs on behalf of any trust company that wishes to have them offered to the public. I do not think there is anything at all unusual about what the provincial savings bank does in that it offers the same services to trust companies licensed to operate in this province. If the member is implying there is anything improper about that, I would like to hear the exact message he is giving me on it.

Mr. Kerrio: What about Re-Mor and Astra?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, we will deal with children's hour later and get to the member.

I would seriously hope that in his message he is not trying to tell the senior citizens he referred to who purchased those GICs that they should have any fear or concern. The member knows and I know that standing behind those deposits is the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. I would not want anybody to get that interpretation.

Mr. Kerrio: It was not the children who invested in Re-Mor and Astra Trust; it was elderly people.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Would the minister not agree that much of the land office business that apparently the savings office is doing in this respect can be traced to the unusually attractive rate of interest that Seaway Trust is offering, a rate which I repeat is running about 2.5 to three percentage points above much of the rest of the market?

Can the minister indicate what he knows about who gets the commission as a result of the placement of these accounts? Is there a policy at the Province of Ontario Savings Office as to whether or not the salesperson receives the commission, which I understand is particularly attractive as offered by Seaway and Greymac, or does it revert to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have no knowledge of any arrangements. The member may wish to direct that question to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy with your permission and the indulgence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to so request the Minister of Revenue, under whose auspices this agency falls. Can the minister indicate what the position of his office is with respect to the commission? Who receives it? Is it the consolidated revenue fund or does it fall to the benefit of the salesperson?

Might he indicate what, if any, advice he is prepared to tender to his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to what is going on in the marketing of these Seaway and Greymac notes, particularly the Seaway notes which of late apparently are unusually attractive? What is government policy in that respect, from his point of view?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Ontario Savings Office does act as agent for many vehicles of investment because we do not market them on our own. We have the traditional chequing-savings account and that is all, so it is not unusual to offer vehicles of all other corporations that operate through an agency system.

Many of the banks, etc., do not. For example, one cannot buy a vehicle from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce through the Province of Ontario Savings Office because it only does them direct. There are no commissions that accrue to the staff of the bank. They are all on salary. They accrue to the operating revenues of the particular branch and hence ultimately back to the consolidated revenue fund.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is reluctant to get into this question with respect to the conduct of any particular company, but I do think it is important since the minister himself has raised the question of evaluations on page three of his statement. Is he saying in answer to the question from the member for Renfrew North that he is satisfied with the way in which Seaway Trust has evaluated properties on which it has taken out mortgages? Does he have entire confidence in the way in which that firm is now being managed? Is he saying he thinks those GIC investments are sound?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, Mr. Speaker, I am saying exactly what I said and I do not mind repeating it. I said very clearly the issues related to value are inherently involved in the Morrison special examination. I was pointing out to the member for Renfrew North that GICs are protected within the limits of the legislation by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

LAND USE PLANS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder if the minister could tell us why progress in his ministry, on a wide range of important issues, has ground to a halt?

Specifically, why do we not now have a wetlands policy, despite the fact it was promised? Why do we not have a new Aggregates Act? Why has there been no designation of new wilderness parks in the province? Why have the results of the woods utilization study not been tabled? Why has no decision been made on the environmental assessment exemption? Why has there been no report tabled on the one-industry communities? Why has no decision been made on the Killarney Provincial Park boundaries and other issues? Why has no decision been made on the Reed Paper tract of land in northwestern Ontario? Why has no commitment been made to reimplement the master parks planning process within his ministry?

When is the minister going to get control of his ministry and occupy himself with these major issues on which decisions should already have been made?

Hon. Mr. Pope: If the member can send me over that list of questions --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. We are having difficulty hearing because of the private conversations and I would ask the members please not to carry on private conversations.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I did not hear all of the questions, but let me reply to some of the issues.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is entitled to ask one question and he asked many.

Hon. Mr. Pope: It is no problem, as long as I can take my time in answering, because I have a number.

The honourable member knows that we started our land use planning process 10 years ago, that we spent 10 years accumulating data, and that I indicated in 1981 we wanted to bring it to a resolution by December 1982. We have had 130 open houses with 10,000 people attending and giving us their personal ideas. We have had seven public forums with approximately 5,000 people attending to address issues involving parks creation, boundary issues with respect to parks, other forestry practices and land use planning practices.

The honourable member knows all of these have taken place. He knows I have been involved in them. He knows we are in the process of making decisions in accordance with our own guidelines and deadlines. Incidentally he is the one who wants to extend the deadline on land use planning and parks decisions.

Mr. Laughren: I do not.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Oh, yes he does. That is what he was saying to Mr. Fahlgren in northern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: No.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member knows very well why there has been no legislation introduced in this House this session. It lies on that party's doorstep and no one else's.

Mr. Laughren: This honourable member also knows that what the minister has just said is not factual.

I will try to be very precise, Mr. Speaker, because this is the minister who not only does not answer oral questions but does not even answer questions that are put to him on the Order Paper. I will be very precise with the minister concerning the whole question of management of our forests and environmental assessment.

How is it the minister still has not complied with those conditions which were imposed upon his ministry when it was granted the environmental assessment exemption back on April I of this year? Why is it that the minister has not, for example, received all of the 80 operating and management plans from the private sector which indicate how they are going to manage the forests in Ontario? Could he tell us, for example, how many of those he has received and how many he has passed on to the Ministry of the Environment?

Finally, does the minister understand that if he gets an extension of the environmental assessment exemption, he is undermining the credibility of the entire environmental assessment process in Ontario? When is the minister going to exercise his ministerial responsibility in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I intend to exercise my ministerial responsibilities under the statutes that give me power to do so. I am exercising my ministerial responsibility. The member should look at the Public Lands Act, the Crown Timber Act, the Mining Act, all those acts that give me responsibility to make decisions for our forest resources, our mineral resources and our public lands resources. I am making the decisions.

He should look back at the progress that has been made in meaningful consultation with respect to forest management agreements, 20-year operating plans and five-year operating plans, the open houses that have been held and the discussions that have taken place throughout the province. He should look at our utilization studies and the progress we have been making in that area. He should look at what we are doing in new products development in our forestry industry: all the progress that is being made, all the consultation that is taking place. If he did, the member would realize he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the first question of the member for Nickel Belt about park planning. Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources would help me and the good people of Renfrew county to understand when the promise made by no less a person than the Premier (Mr. Davis) will be kept. He will recall that in the winter campaign of 1980-81 the Premier came to my great part of the province and said there would be a whitewater park on the Madawaska River near the great community of Griffith.

A year after the promise was made, the ministry office in my area indicated there was no money and the whole plan would have to be put off. I am wondering if the minister might specifically indicate to the people of Renfrew county when the promise made by the Premier in 1981 with respect to the whitewater park on the Madawaska River will be kept.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, members of our cabinet have been on the scene examining that whitewater park candidate. We have obtained information. I assume the member also supports the acquisition of the Shaw estate that took place just three months ago with respect to a new park facility in the Westmeath area. I assume he is glad we kept that promise. If he had taken the time to go to the open houses, which he has not done, if he were really concerned and interested in looking at that candidate park, he would know it has been decided for 1983. The member has not shown any interest in our planning processes. He does not know what he is talking about, and he should go back and learn about it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my final and brief supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

REGINA V. VALENTE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, following the publicity given to the comments of provincial court Judge William Sharpe and provincial court Judge Reid Scott as to the matter of their independence. Has the Attorney General moved to place this issue before a superior court? If so, which one, and when does he expect the matter will be heard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, we will be applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on Thursday of this week.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is that leave to appeal with respect to a reference under the Constitutional Questions Act, or is it the ordinary case of moving where a judge has not made a decision under the mandamus approach?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, we have not rejected the possibility that was discussed in the estimates of the other procedure. We have looked at the decision of Judge Sharpe very carefully and we figure it can be argued that it was a judgement within the meaning of the Provincial Offences Act. On Thursday we are asking for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. If that is not successful then we will consider any other options that may be available to get this matter into a higher court for an authoritative decision as soon as possible.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Attorney General, instead of taking this very narrow view of the question, would consider particularly the statement made by Judge Scott. It is not limited to the Provincial Offences Act but to all of the judicial decisions of that judge and others who think alike. Would the minister now consider that and refer the whole matter under the Constitutional Questions Act to the Court of Appeal so there will not be the unsettlement and the disruption of the administration of justice which is forecast by this important question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are not underestimating the potential seriousness of this matter. Judge Scott's statements were not in reference to any particular case and that poses some difficulty. But while we are certainly aware of your concerns and your suggestions, we think at this time this is the best route to follow. We agree it is important to obtain, if at all possible, an authoritative judgement on this matter as soon as possible.

I was advised this afternoon that this argument was made before two other provincial court judges today -- the purported lack of independence -- and it was rejected by both these judges.

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. My question follows the question asked by my leader on December 2 about the present cutbacks to the Ontario Arts Council of 15 per cent of their budget.

The minister has now had almost three weeks to think about the letter and the following events. He must be aware of the uproar the announcement caused among the arts organizations in Ontario -- from the Ottawa Symphony Orchestra to the Tarragon Theatre to small organizations like the Kaministiquia Theatre Laboratory in Thunder Bay, which is the major cultural institution of that kind in northern Ontario. Can the minister tell the House now if he fully understands the devastating effects of the cutback on those art organizations?

The minister said on December 13 to the Opera America International Conference that the arts constitute a major industry in Ontario and they are even more important than the steel and the pulp industry. The cutback will not only reduce employment but will destroy an artistic setup that will be extremely difficult to rebuild. Also it will amount only to one quarter of one per cent of the total provincial budget. In view of these points can the minister make a commitment to this House now that the cutback will not take place? It is unjust and will destroy very vital aspects of the life of this province.

Can the minister tell us if he has been able to convince his colleagues on this point? They may not understand the arts in general but certainly must understand that this is not the time to create more unemployment in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I will try to do justice to that long and important question. My colleagues in the Ontario government do not need any convincing that the arts are important. One can witness the moneys made available to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and to the Ontario Arts Council since 1963. The record is there and it speaks for itself.

Over the last three weeks, since the member's leader raised the question, I have had time to rethink the matter. I think the people of the arts council and its immediate constituent groups also have had the opportunity not only to rethink it but to do some impressive lobbying. I support their endeavours to the extent that culture is an important job creation economic tool in our province. That is one of the reasons we as a government have made that support a priority for some 20 years now.

On the other hand I think the arts council and its constituent groups have had an opportunity to rethink the circumstances all of us are in today, that is, the economic restraint that impacts on everyone. I think it is important to understand two things from my point of view. Quite properly, the arts council is an independent, autonomous agency of the ministry, for reasons every single person in this chamber understands, but it is not adequate for the arts community to think it can exist in isolation from the economic realities that impact upon every other man and woman in this province.

I will repeat what I said three weeks ago. When the final determinations are made, and the budget is divided up among the agencies and the divisions of my ministry -- and, quite properly, that will be made public as soon as it is done -- we will have an opportunity to see the kind of exercises we went through in the ministry. There is no question the arts council will get the best possible treatment we can muster for them.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the honourable minister say the record speaks for itself and that he will do everything possible for the arts community, but he must realize that, for example, the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra over four years has only received a 13 per cent increase in its grants. He knows very well the difficulties in raising private funds that the Dundas Valley School of Art has endured recently. If he does a little arithmetic he will realize that the restraint program had at least a nine and five formula; for the arts we have a five per cent and a minus-15 per cent formula.

Those people in the arts community are working people like others in the economy. Surely it is essential for that ministry to treat them at least within the same guidelines, so that the horn players and the violinists of Orchestra London, the Hamilton Philharmonic or the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, which will go into demise if his formula is applied, are treated on the same basis. It is essential to provide equitably for the arts.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: With regard to the observation that some simple arithmetic would be in order, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and now the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, have made available some 300 million to cultural groups in this province since 1975. Second, for the record, the Ontario Arts Council has made available to artists in this jurisdiction something in the order of 570 million in the last decade. There is not a jurisdiction in North America that has made that kind of cultural investment. So much for simple arithmetic.

Now let me speak to the matter of the 15 per cent cutback. That is a piece of mythology that is being perpetuated by people in the arts council and many of its constituent groups. There will be some cutbacks for self-evident reasons. That has been in all the papers. Taxpayers are under a lot of pressure, but the arts community in this province will be treated as fairly as it is possible to treat it. The record of this government for 20 years speaks to that.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say on one hand he supports the endeavours of these people asking to be kept on a level or to get more funds, and on the other hand that they will not get as much.

3:20 p.m.

Surely the minister must be aware of the number of letters, calls and meetings we are having with arts groups across this province. They are afraid that if he puts into effect the 15 per cent cutback, that coupled with the inflation rate will cut them back so much a lot of those groups are going to have to close down completely. Surely the minister should be giving more support and asking for more support from the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the members of the cabinet to see that does not happen in this province.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, the critic raises a perception here that I frankly think is unfair to the arts community. The perception is that the arts community spends all its working hours asking government for money. The fact is it does not.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that and I did not imply it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think the member implied that. He said there was a general feeling.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: There is a broad perception that the arts community spends an inordinate amount of time asking all three levels of government for financial assistance.

That governments have played a major part in funding artists and art organizations is an obvious fact. If we had all the money in the world -- and we do not -- we would still be asking artists, art galleries, museums, symphony orchestras such as the Hamilton Philharmonic, opera companies and others to market their good products a little more aggressively with our assistance. This would be quite right and proper in this economic environment.

In the ministry, through 1983, we will be hosting a series of seminars and working with our client groups in approaching corporations --

Mr. Martel: Never mind the seminars, just give them the money.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Sudbury East knows about corporations.

We will be working with our client groups in approaching corporations that have great sensitivity to community activities, asking them to play a role of support, trying to market their talents to private donors.

It is not just a question of us writing more cheques. They will get the best possible assistance we can give, but we will ask them to work with us in helping to market their products, to reach out for bigger audiences, whether it is the Quinte School of Dance, the Hamilton Philharmonic or the Canadian Opera Company. With our assistance, all of them can sell their product a lot more effectively.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I wonder if he might tell us whether he approves of the practice of the Metropolitan Toronto police in a recent promotion? In the last while, apparently under a scheme for promoting a movie called Best Friends, they have infringed on the liberties of individuals and have stopped drivers to give what was called a safe driver citation along with a couple of tickets to this movie.

Would the Solicitor General tell us whether he approves of this practice? If not, as Solicitor General in charge of the police in this province will he be sending the strongest message possible condemning such actions on the part of the police?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, no. I would not send such a document to the police on behalf of this Legislature or on behalf of the Solicitor General. I think the police are doing an admirable job in regard to the drinking and driving program we are in at this time of year and throughout the year.

The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have instituted a task force on drinking and driving and this is all part of that drinking and driving program. I also think the police are doing a community service.

They do not often get an opportunity to stop people, tell them what good drivers they are and reward them.

The honourable member is attacking a situation that is very positive towards the citizens of this country in recognizing their driving habits. I see nothing wrong with an officer stopping somebody and patting him on the back. If the member is against something positive in our society, then please say so, but I think this is one for which the police can be applauded. They are saying: "Thank you very much. Go to a theatre on us. What fine fellows, officers and gentlemen, we are."

Mr. Roy: I must say I can hardly understand the response on the part of the Solicitor General. Does he not understand that when we give specific duties, specific rights or obligations to the police to infringe on the liberties of individuals, for very specific purposes, for instance to enforce safe driving laws or mechanical fitness of motor vehicles, that infringement of liberty should be used for the specific purpose?

Does the minister not see the infringement should not be made for the purpose of promoting private enterprise? Does he not see something wrong in using public funds for the police of Ontario to get involved in private enterprise? As has been said in many press columns, from now on what will stop the police from encouraging us to buy at Loblaw's or to have signs on cars promoting one movie rather than another? Does the minister not see that it undermines the respectability and credibility of police forces to be involved in this sort of activity?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I think the member is taking a situation of rewarding individuals in this community and stretching it far beyond reason. When somebody describes this as a breach of civil liberties he is playing legal gymnastics with the Constitution and what may be characterized as civil liberties.

I am sure the member, who is a practising lawyer, is aware that a police officer may stop drivers of motor vehicles from time to time and make safety checks. Indeed, we have the reduce impaired driving everywhere program in Toronto and the selective traffic enforcement program in Ottawa, with which he is familiar. This is an extension of those. I think it is good community liaison by police officers to reward those citizens for their good driving habits, just as from time to time they have to give them disincentives for their bad driving habits.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fiddle faddle.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, even I cannot think up a supplementary to that.

SUSPENSION OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I refer to the suspension of six correctional officers on December 10, pursuant to section 22, regulation 18, under the Public Service Act, as a result of the incident that occurred at the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre.

When is the investigation going to be completed? When is the suspension going to be raised? Are they to be restored to their pay as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As the member for Riverdale is aware, the suspension is now for up to 20 working days for the six correctional officers in question. The investigation is proceeding and we hope it will be completed before the 20-day suspension is up. Pay will be restored depending on whether disciplinary action will be taken at the time the investigation is concluded.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the six correctional officers are charged under the Criminal Code in the courts, and the Charter of Rights states that everybody is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In view of this will the minister now revoke either the suspension, or the suspension of pay, in order that these officers will not be subject to double jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: My answer to that question is that I will not revoke this decision. Subsection 22(1) of the Public Service Act provides for the suspension of an employee, pending an investigation, for periods of up to 20 working days, subject to renewal, and for the withholding of the employee's pay. Clearly, this legislation recognizes that certain situations warrant the removal of an employee from the work place and from the payroll even though the matter is still subject to investigation.

I would like to point out to the member for Riverdale, who is learned in the law, that I have been advised by our legal counsel that this provision and our actions in following it are in compliance with the new Charter of Rights and do not in any way violate that charter.

TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT LICENCE

Mr. Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications relating to the application by a United States carrier, Roadway Express, to acquire the international operating licence of Harkema Express Lines Ltd. of Brampton. Is the minister aware that this licence has been dormant for a year and a half, and will the minister use the provisions of section 12, I believe, of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act to cancel Harkema's dormant licence?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe the section to which the honourable member refers, as was pointed out in the letter that all members received from the Ontario Trucking Association, would not allow me to cancel its licence but would allow me to refer it to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for a hearing. I realize the Harkema licence has not been active for some period of time, as the matter has been before the Foreign Investment Review Agency for the past year and a half or so awaiting a decision, which has just now been received.

I am taking under advisement the suggestion I have received from the Ontario Trucking Association, and I am asking my legal advisers to look into that suggestion. I have not made any decision on that yet. I do expect, though, since the FIRA approval has been given by the federal government, that Roadway will be making an application to the highway transport board for the transfer of the licence. If it does, I am sure there will be a public hearing on that application.

Mr. Cunningham: In view of the fact that the licence has not been utilized for the past year and a half, will the minister not regard it to be dormant and will he not make a request to the board under the appropriate provision of the act for a hearing to determine whether it is dormant and whether the licence is at an end?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot really add any more. I said I am asking the legal officers of the ministry to look into that provision of the act and to advise me on that matter. I am sure the member knows there are a great many cases where licences or parts of licences are dormant, and it has not been our policy in the past to ask for a hearing every time a licence is dormant for a period of time.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On November 29 the minister made a statement in the House concerning the matter raised by the New Democratic Party involving the Essex County Board of Education, which required that women employees undergo internal examinations and chest measurements to gain employment. The minister's statement said, "The board of education has agreed to eliminate internal examinations and chest measurements and to make its medical examinations, both pre-employment and post-employment, job related."

Is the minister aware that the Windsor Board of Education intends to continue the practice of requiring this type of examination but states that it will be optional, which means that those women who do not subject themselves to it will not get jobs? Will the minister intervene and advise the board that we will no longer tolerate those types of examinations in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to follow up on that matter.

Mr. Martel: The lawyer for the board has advised the board, and let me just quote one part of a sentence: "There is nothing in the code or in any regulation currently in force thereunder which limits the extent of the physical examination."

Will the minister either introduce an amendment to the Human Rights Code or at least bring in some regulation under that or any other act that would prohibit this sort of examination from going on anywhere in this province, and let us put it to bed once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It was my understanding that in the previous discussions we had with the Essex board they had voluntarily decided to withdraw this type of examination, and whenever we can effect something on a voluntary basis, I feel that is certainly much more practical than trying to bring in legislation or regulations for everything that controls our lives these days.

ASTRA RE-MOR

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who has the opportunity to provide a Christmas present for the people --

Interjections.

Some hon. members: He's back.

Mr. Rae: I guess there is no vote today.

Mr. Bradley: I guess they are not interested in the Re-Mor victims. I thought the member for York South (Mr. Rae), when he was on television in the federal House, was interested.

The minister has had in his possession since June or July what I call a report and he calls a letter from the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman has indicated he is prepared to have the minister release that report.

Since the standing committee on administration of justice recommended compensation for the Re-Mor depositors, since apparently the Ombudsman recommended it and since it is the Christmas season -- for all those reasons, is the minister prepared to announce in the House today that the government is ready to provide compensation to the victims of the Re-Mor scam and cease the court proceedings that have been necessary up to this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you ready to vote on Bill 179 yet?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What is his vote? Does he have a position on Bill 179?

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister please address himself to the question?

An hon. member: Be careful.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Be careful?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Be very careful.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be careful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't embarrass them.

Mr. Bradley: We are talking about Re-Mor.

Mr. Rae: He has a position. It is called absent.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will take the Premier's advice, and I will not try to embarrass anybody, any time. I do not think so -- well, I may some time.

Mr. Rae: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to make it clear, because there was an intimation that the government and this minister in particular had received a final report from the Ombudsman, that this is not so; it has never been so. The honourable member should not try to leave the impression with anybody that it has been so.

There has been a letter from the Ombudsman under section 19, saying it is open to me to conclude that. As the member knows, that leads to a process of discussion and so forth. That is the stage it is at. There has been no letter of recommendation.

The government is currently in the process and should have a response for the Ombudsman shortly. I would expect recommendations to cabinet to follow that in the near future.

Mr. Bradley: The minister probably is aware that the court proceedings are unlikely to proceed to any significant stage; I guess the earliest would be next summer if we are to believe the reports emanating from those with the legal counsel for the victims. According to the Ombudsman's testimony before the committee, two of the people who were victims of this scam have died. Others are not necessarily in the best of health.

Will the minister assure the House that, having taken the action he has at present, an announcement will be made at the earliest opportunity and that the court cases will be dealt with by means of a settlement outside of court so that all the victims, whether they have gone through the court process or the political process, will have the same opportunity for compensation should he conclude that is what they should receive?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can assure the member that we will move expeditiously in this regard. Clearly the other matters he has referred to relate to the discussions I have had with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and relate to individual Re-Mor investors' rights and privileges to do what they wish. Those matters are part of the issues we are resolving. I will continue to try to expedite the whole process.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. The member for London North.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing my standing here. I am really perplexed as to whether this is a point of order or a point of privilege, but it is a serious point and a question I should address to either the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). It is not as much a question as a point. It is that when we --

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of privilege?

Mr. Van Horne: A point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question.

Mr. Van Horne: No, I am sorry. The question came in my mind and it comes out as a point of privilege.

I really do feel it affects my privileges as a member who sits here day after day trying to understand how the government spends money as it does, trying to understand how it could spend more than $45 million on Minaki Lodge, and then announce in the publication Background that any members of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario who are interested in meeting at Minaki in May 1983 should refer their wishes to lodge operators in Winnipeg, Manitoba. How in heaven's name --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for London North knows that is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Van Horne: Is that how it is being supported? By sending them to Manitoba? The government ought to be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:40 p.m.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition signed by 98 constituents from that great riding of Sarnia requesting the withdrawal of Bill 127.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to be here for the vote on that bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: I will be here for the vote on your jet. You weren't here for the vote on your jet.

Mr. Piché: All he has on his mind is the jet.

An hon. member: When he looks at you, it becomes a water bomber.

Mr. Foulds: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House a petition on behalf of the citizens of London South who are very concerned about Bill 127 and are seeking that it be withdrawn.

RENT CONTROL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by 1,000 tenants from the six Ottawa-area ridings and addressed to the government and specifically to the Premier. It reads as follows:

"A tenants' petition to Mr. Davis and the government of Ontario about guidelines:

"Dear Mr. Davis:

"Our wages are being controlled; please control our rents to the same extent.

"Yours sincerely."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs be authorized to meet this afternoon, Tuesday, December 21.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLICATION OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that written questions appear on the daily Notice Paper the day after they are tabled, and every subsequent day in the week they are tabled, and then subsequently only each Monday until an answer, other than an interim answer, is tabled.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 3(a), the House will continue to sit through the dinner recess today.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned unti1 January 17, 1983, provided that if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and that, should Mr. Speaker be unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 212, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement I made earlier today on this proposed legislation, I do not think a lengthy statement on first reading is necessary. I will limit my comments to pointing out that the bill is intended to provide powers to deal with two situations that could arise before we were able to deal with them in a general revision of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

The following are the general areas covered by the bill:

First, the bill will require the consent of the registrar appointed under the act for the transfer of 10 per cent or more of the shares of a corporation or of a holding company that holds more than 10 per cent of the shares of an Ontario loan or trust corporation.

Second, the bill similarly requires consent for the transfer of any number of shares in a loan or trust corporation where the transfer will result in a shareholder holding 10 per cent or more of the shares or in an increase of his holdings if he already holds 10 per cent or more.

Third, the bill will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to authorize the registrar to take possession and control of a loan or trust company in a more expeditious manner and for a wider number of reasons than is possible under the existing act. It will also authorize the imposition of terms and conditions on the operations of a company where it is not considered necessary to take possession and control. The addition of these powers recognizes a number of circumstances where the public interest may require prompt action.

Fourth, there are provisions to provide for the more effective enforcement of the act.

Let me emphasize that I believe it is most prudent to proceed to pass this bill without delay on the clear understanding that an ongoing review of the act will include a review of matters raised in this bill.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 213, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Motion agreed to.

WINDBREAKS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 214, An Act for the Protection of Windbreaks.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides that where a person injures or removes a tree planted in a windbreak and is convicted of trespass or theft in connection with injury to or removal of the tree, the court may require the person to replace the tree.

3:50 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 292, 298, 314, 549 to 589 inclusive, and 617 to 643 inclusive, on the Notice Paper [see Appendix A, page 6455]. In view of the length of some of these responses, I am going to ask several of the pages to deliver the documents to the Clerk's table.

In doing this today, since it is likely the last day before the Christmas recess, I might say there were 689 questions put on the Notice Paper. So far we have answered more than 400, which is almost more than the total number of questions asked in any previous session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the introduction of the bill by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) today, we will be changing the order as it appears on the Order Paper. By motion the House has decided to sit through dinner recess and, instead of considering order 61, House in committee of supply on the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor, Premier and Cabinet Office, when we reach that point on the Order Paper we will consider second reading, committee of the whole and third reading stages of the bill just introduced.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when does the minister want to do Bill 199, An Act to amend the Law Society Act? I am not pressing it; we will do it when the minister says, but I want to know when to be ready.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we will do Bill 199 right after second reading of the bill of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, so that the member can be ready with his speech.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 188, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 191, An Act to provide for the continuation of the Provisional County of Haliburton as the County of Haliburton.

Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved third reading of Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say a few words about this bill on third reading. It was pointed out clearly by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations last night and by tenants' groups appearing before us yesterday afternoon and last evening that this government plans to restrict wage increases in the province without any kind of equivalent controls on rents.

The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations pointed out that despite the initiatives of this bill, the picture for most tenants remains bleak at present. It went on to say, "We believe it is significant that the government seems to agree with the federation's assessment of the situation facing tenants, and yet this is the only explanation for the steps that are now taken by the minister in this bill." It goes on, though, to point out, "The steps that are being taken, while they may assist some tenants, are clearly inadequate."

Our leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), gave certain examples in this House, examples that are quite similar to examples that I as the housing critic have been pointing out over the last few years.

There was 304 Kingston Road, bought in April 1981 for $240,000. The first-year increase with a three-year pass-through will amount to 49.4 per cent; the first-year increase with a five-year pass-through would amount to 37.9 per cent.

There was 172 Queen's Avenue in Mimico with six units -- a 63.5 per cent pass-through or, on a five-year pass-through, 55 per cent.

There was 40 Earl Street -- 23.3 per cent. That is under appeal; we do not know the results of the appeal, because the landlord refused to identify the real owners of this numbered company.

There also was 34 Gulliver Road -- 30.3 per cent.

What I am pointing out is that this bill, while it may save some tenants some costs, clearly is inadequate. This came across over and over again from the tenants' representatives and from the legal aid groups that act on behalf of tenants.

Last night we in this party moved a number of amendments. First of all, we asked for the disclosure of ownership. This is not a new issue to this party. We had moved it in a different act in 1977 only to have it defeated under the minority government. If disclosure had taken place at that time, perhaps the present situation that we are in with Cadillac would not exist.

The New Democratic Party moved an amendment to require the disclosure of all beneficial owners of more than five per cent of the shares of a corporate owner of rental residential property, and failure to disclose that ownership would result, not in the kind of 23 per cent increase the tenants received at 40 Earl Street, but rather in no increase granted to the landlord. Unfortunately, that was defeated.

We dealt with the problem of effective dates. Our amendment to extend the bill to cover any rent review application for which an order had not been met would have expanded this so that we would not create, as the minister does in this bill, two classes of tenants: those who have some protection from pass-through and those who do not. That again was defeated.

We suggested that if the minister felt it important enough to have interim legislation until such time as he could get his act together and until such time as his ministry, which has been hearing about these problems for the past five years, could get its act together, the simplest way would be to have a five per cent freeze. We moved an amendment to that effect; that again was defeated by the Conservatives.

We also suggested that we had some anxiety about section 7. We said there should be no fixed termination date until such time as we could see the legislation that the minister would propose to replace it. It seemed reasonable to us that if this were an interim bill, if this were an emergency situation, as the minister suggested and as we agreed, he should come back to this Legislature with his proposals before the act self-destructs. Again the minister seemed to have so little faith in what his new act would do, so little faith that he could convince the opposition and the tenants of the merits of that new act, whenever it comes through, that he refused to allow that kind of open end. Therefore, we lost our vote against section 7, on the removal of section 7.

4 p.m.

Last, I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we moved an amendment that would establish a rent registry under the Landlord and Tenant Act in order to avoid the constitutional problems with the present unproclaimed section of the Residential Tenancies Act and to provide penalties where there was failure to comply. The minister agrees that the problem of illegal rent increases is a significant one. He knows about it. It has been brought to his attention for years and years yet he wants to study it further, so even that amendment was defeated.

We will be voting for this bill simply because it offers something. However, we do so realizing, as the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations pointed out and as all of the tenant groups pointed out, this is far too little, far too late.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the page who sent around these candy canes to us. I think that is very thoughtful of the page and, on behalf of all 125 members, including yourself, I want to thank the page for doing that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank you and we all endorse that.

Mr. Epp: Second, I do want, in the spirit of Christmas, to commend the minister for bringing forth the bill. It is obvious that the bill was a response to the Cadillac Fairview Greymac fiasco, if one wants to call it that, or if one wants to be more charitable, the sales that transpired and the continuation of those sales through three or four depths of numbered companies, which supposedly or are in fact owned by a number of people from Saudi Arabia.

The minister is aware that our party very much would have appreciated a five per cent freeze right across the board. It is something that we in this party have supported wholeheartedly and something that we spoke of in Bill 179, the restraint bill, and of course we support it now. We wanted to include that in Bill 198, the five-per-cent-plus bill. What the bill actually does, as everyone knows, is put a five per cent limit on the financial pass-through. We would have liked to have seen not only a restraint of the five per cent pass-through, but also a restraint on the six per cent plus, whatever it amounts to, which may amount to 11 per cent plus.

One of the amendments we put forth was to roll back the date, not to the day that royal assent comes about, which may be today, but to November 16 when the minister got up in the House and made his very impressive and important statement. We would have liked to have seen it go back to that date because there have been a lot of applications and hearings that have taken place in the interim period that will not be subject to this legislation but would have been subject had he accepted our amendment to roll back the date to November 16.

There are two other aspects. One was demolition control. The issue arose in the city of Toronto, when the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), a colleague of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, introduced a private bill which would have brought about demolition control. We, in our wisdom, felt it would have been helpful to incorporate Pr13 into this particular bill as an addendum.

The minister easily could have incorporated that yesterday when we made our amendment. Unfortunately he did not do it, for a number of reasons, and we think that is an error on his part that is obviously going to affect a lot of homes in this municipality. I am talking about homes, not in the very narrow sense of single-family residences, but apartments and so forth. People are going to lose their homes because some landlord decides to demolish his or her building for one reason or another. Had he incorporated the amendments in this particular legislation, or had the government adopted Pr13, a lot of people would not have lost their homes or be facing the loss of their homes.

Finally, we would like to have seen some kind of registry system such as we have spoken about. The minister in a number of, may I respectfully say feeble, attempts has tried to delay this decision, but --

Mr. Cooke: You have no respect.

Mr. Epp: No, I have a lot of respect for him, but I do not think he has really been able to sell it to his cabinet colleagues, for whatever reason, or to convince himself that this should happen.

Nevertheless, it is being delayed. We would very much like to see the registry system incorporated, particularly in view of the fact that we were supportive of this principle some years ago when Bill 163 was debated over at least a 12-month period when it was introduced in the committee hearings and finally became law.

We would like to see the minister get on his white charger, as I indicated last night, and do something about this. If he does do it, we will commend him for it. Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas.

Motion agreed to.

DISRUPTION OF HOUSE

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On a matter raised last Thursday evening pertaining to the disruption of the House by certain individuals, who attempted by their actions to obstruct or intimidate members of this assembly, which is a contemptible offence, has the Speaker reached a decision on the matter yet?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have. As I indicated on Thursday last, I have taken the matter raised by the member for Cochrane North under serious consideration. I appreciate the strong feeling in this regard. The incident he referred to indeed is a very serious one, which might well be found to be contempt of the House.

However, I find that the rule which says that breach of privilege or contempt of the House must be raised at the earliest possible moment is one that has been strictly enforced. In this regard I refer you to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the House of Commons of Canada on June 9, 1969. Having regard for this point, I find the motion unacceptable.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Do you mean to say that you do not accept any of the responsibility for the action of the House but only respond to a request from --

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Renwick: That is not what he said.

Mr. Nixon: If you don't mind, I will ask him to interpret the words. I know how sensitive you are on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was responding to a point raised by the member for Cochrane North. I have found, because of the time lapse and because of the precedent already established, that I cannot accept it.

However, I can assure all honourable members this matter regarding the security of the whole chamber has been referred to the Board of Internal Economy for further consideration and we will be having a report back very shortly on that.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Cooke moved second reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

4:10 p.m.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Newman moved, on behalf of Mr. Wrye, second reading of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Provincial Court (Civil Division) Project Act.

Mr. Chairman: I think we have amendments right off the bat to section 1.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I could speak for just a few moments on the matter, the amendments which the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is going to propose could be put en bloc, I would think, and then a discussion on the particular ones could be held.

As members may recall, when we had the occasion for second reading debate I suggested to the Attorney General four particular themes where amendments could be brought forward that would in my view make the provincial court (civil division) a fully fledged and operative court that would have a future, that would have judges appropriately appointed and would have the duties of those judges clearly spelled out.

The end result of the amendments I proposed would be to expand the jurisdiction of this court beyond the boundaries of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as might be decided in the future according to the decisions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I then proposed that certain sections of the Provincial Courts Act would apply to judges under this act so they would have more of the general powers and the appropriate status of what I expect will become a permanent division of the provincial court.

Members will recall that when this bill was first brought before the House -- and it appears in its entirety as chapter 397 of the revised statutes, 1980 -- the civil division was a project within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

That project was going to end on January 1, 1983.

We had the benefit of the report that was referred to on second reading debate, prepared by Ann Cavoukian and Steve McCann. At that time, I referred briefly to the conclusions which appeared at pages 194 and 195 of the report and the views I expressed were concurred in by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) as the Justice critic for his party. We both agreed with the Attorney General that this project was worthy of establishment and development as a separate division, with the expectation of having the opportunity for judges of this court to be appointed perhaps in the other larger municipal areas as may develop over the next several years.

So I suggested the four amendments that I have referred to, and the response was most positive and pleasing to me from the Attorney General, that the ministry would be prepared to consider the establishment of this project on a broader base rather than just the continuation of what was there now in a more uncertain commitment for its future.

Amendments were brought before me and delivered to me by legislative counsel setting out how the themes I had raised would be included and adding to them a variety of other amendments made necessary by the prospective expansion of this court into possible other areas of the province.

We had the amendments that were presented this morning from the Attorney General, which effectively covered what I had suggested as the themes for this court. At that point two of the areas still had not been entirely dealt with as I had proposed. One was the manner of the reference in the appointment of the judges of the court, which appears in clause 1(b) of the original act, and the other was the reference with respect to sections 9, 12 and 13 of the Provincial Courts Act as to the duties and obligations of the judges appointed under the act, chapter 397.

I was then led to believe that from a policy point of view it was preferable that the judges appointed would have reference only to subsection 9(2) as well as to sections 12 and 13 of the Provincial Courts Act in their particular reference. But now we have a further set of amendments suggested with a variety of other changes.

The most important change is that the judges will not be referred to only with respect to this act, as I had suggested in my amendment to clause 1(b); rather, and indeed much more pleasing, is the fact that the judges will be provincial judges appointed under the Provincial Courts Act, and as a result they will then have, as I understand it, all the status and qualities that their brethren in the criminal and family divisions would also have.

I welcome this further set of changes, because I think now it properly and thoroughly accomplishes what I certainly had hoped would be considered and accepted by the Attorney General. The result is indeed an improvement over my immediate drafting, recognizing, of course, that there are a variety of other sections that legislative counsel would consider appropriate to have amended because of the variety of resultant changes that occur from those four amendments, or those four themes, that I had originally suggested.

I am pleased that these other amendments are now going to be suggested, and they certainly have my full support. If I might suggest this, unless my friend the member for Riverdale wanted to speak at this point, we could proceed -- after his remarks, if he so wishes, of course -- to place all the amendments, and I would be quite content that they would then all carry.

Mr. Chairman: Before we continue, I guess I was in error. We probably should have allowed the Attorney General to place the amendments.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Why do we not do that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief comment. I appreciate the remarks of the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). I apologize to the members that these amendments are not typewritten. I think perhaps there had been a little misunderstanding by my ministry based on my failure to communicate my wishes adequately: that was to make no question about it but that the judges would enjoy the same status as the other judges in the provincial court.

4:20 p.m.

As I say, not having conveyed that message adequately enough, the typewritten amendments which were presented to me early this afternoon just after the opening of the House obviously did not reflect our wishes in that regard.

I appreciate the comments and support of the member for Kitchener. I would certainly be content to introduce the amendments in one package if that is agreeable, but I would be quite happy to hear the comments of the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I accept, concur in and adopt the remarks made by my friend the member for Kitchener.

Indeed, had he not proposed these amendments I would have proposed them myself. I was aware he was going to introduce them. I appreciate the purpose of the four themes the member for Kitchener has referred to.

I believe the amendments as now finally, completely before us, which were accepted in substance by the Attorney General, fully reflect those themes and I for my part will be quite happy when the amendments are put to vote on them and the bill passes out of committee.

Mr. Chairman: Is there no further discussion? I wonder if the Attorney General could put the amendments as indicated. My copies are photo-stated and I cannot read the part which is written in. Is it agreed that he just reads it once -- he must have the original -- and that will be it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be amended by deleting section 2 and substituting the following:

"2(1). Clause 1(b) of the said act is repealed.

"(2). Clause 1(c) of the said act is amended by striking out, 'of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto' in the second line."

I further move that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the bill be renumbered as sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 and that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"3. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"2(1). There shall be a court of record in and for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in such areas as are designated by the rules named by the provincial court (civil division).

"(2). The provincial court (civil division) shall be presided over by provincial judges appointed under the Provincial Courts Act, RSO 1980, chapter 398.

"4(1). Subsection 6(4) of the act is amended by inserting after 'Toronto' in the second line 'and areas designated by the rules.'

"(2). Subsection 6(5) of the said act is amended by inserting after 'Toronto' in the third line 'and areas designated by the rules.'

"5(1). Subsection 7(1) of the said act is amended by inserting after '1980' in the third line the words 'or in a designated area before the effective date of the designation.'

"(2). Subsection 7(2) of the said act is amended by striking out the words 'before the 30th day of June 1980' and inserting in lieu thereof the words 'in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto before the 30th day of June 1980 or in a designated area before the effective date of the designation.'

"6(1). Clause 9(1)(b) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(b) designating areas in the territorial jurisdiction of the provincial court;

"(c) providing for sittings of the provincial court to be held at places in its territorial jurisdiction outside the local division in which the action is commenced but in the same judicial district.

"(2). Subsection 9(3) of the said act is repealed."

I further move that section 8 of the bill as renumbered be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"8. This act comes into force of the first day of January 1983."

Mr. Chairman: The Attorney General has put forward amendments to Bill 196.

An hon. member: Carried.

Mr. Chairman: That would be nice.

Mr. Roy: I have a few comments, if nobody else has.

Mr. Chairman: Could we have a package of comments? It is a little confusing. There are no amendments to section 1. Let us get it out of the way.

Section I agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief comments. It is on the full amendments and the full bill.

I want to put on the record that I support fully the process that is taking place here today. It is a process that started with the act being passed originally under chapter 397. It is an interesting process that is taking place in our courts. I see it as a process which will make the courts more effective and efficient.

The Attorney General, having held that office for a number of years, will understand the difficulty all ministries are having in getting adequate funds to respond to what is at least perceived as the need out there. One of the things he is going to have to do in the future with the restrictions on funds is to try to make some arrangements and changes which will make the courts far more efficient and effective.

I want to put on the record that I am in favour of a process such as this. As I understand the results of these amendments combined with the other statute, the Attorney General now is going to have in the provincial courts basically three sections: people doing criminal work, people doing family law work and those doing civil work. That is an interesting process at the provincial level.

I do not know whether this suggestion has been made before, but from my very limited experience I would suggest that the Attorney General give consideration to allowing judges who are appointed to have concurrent jurisdiction in all three areas. I hazard to be bold enough to suggest that those doing only family law or only criminal law or only civil law, after a while may become stale from doing limited -- not limited in number of cases; God knows they have to deal with too many cases and the pressures of having to deal with more and more cases each day, the pressure to get the cases going, to get them terminated and so on.

I am suggesting that, after a while, just doing the same type of work -- only criminal work, or only family law work, or only civil work -- is not as intellectually challenging as it might be if the judges had concurrent jurisdiction. For a period of time they might be doing family law work, then change and do criminal work for a while and then do some civil work. I do not know if that is possible now under the Provincial Courts Act, but it would be more challenging and we would end up with people having greater variety in their work. Also, in my respectful submission, the judges would be far more alert if they could go from one jurisdiction to the next.

4:30 p.m.

I do not want in any way to demean our judges. Personally I am not suited to do that type of work. But from going into court I have some appreciation of the fact that a judge who for 15 years has been hearing nothing but breaking, entering and theft cases, after a while gets somewhat jaded. He could get somewhat cynical of the explanations that are given by the accused. I can understand he has heard them hundreds of times before.

In family law it is the same thing. I used to spend time going to court to do family law work, both as a crown attorney and as a defence counsel. I have seen the processes at work there as well. One keeps hearing the same explanation when people are in trouble at that level. I suggest it may well be the same thing. I have seen what can happen in small claims court. So I am suggesting it would be an interesting process if the judges were to get a variety of work.

I have already suggested to the Attorney General that the provincial judges in the criminal section should have some concurrent jurisdiction to do civil work. That would change the atmosphere, change the environment, and give them something else to think about. They are always thinking about sentences: "How much time should this fellow get and should I be reading his pre-sentence report or should I be getting a report from the social worker about this family situation?"

I make this suggestion as a matter of practicality -- to make our judges and our courts more effective, more efficient and more challenging and, in the final analysis, more attuned to respond to the needs out there. I would like to hear the response of the Attorney General.

I suggest to the Attorney General that as he moves in that area he is also going to have to look at the area of the county courts and supreme courts. Just last week I discussed in the estimates with the Attorney General the brief submitted by the Carleton County Law Association. The outlying jurisdictions outside of Toronto -- whether Windsor, Sudbury, Ottawa or London -- have the perception that the present process of the Supreme Court travelling on a circuit does not respond to the needs of these particular communities.

I do not intend to repeat all the arguments originally made by Mr. Bell in 1973 and by the Carleton County Law Association. But it seems to me that in the long term the Attorney General is moving in the right direction, at least at the provincial level, by getting the three divisions. If there was concurrent jurisdiction it would give the judges more jurisdiction. I think it is rather insulting in a way to appoint very competent people to the bench and then say to them, "You cannot hear a case concerning more than $3,000."

As he moves into civil jurisdiction with his provincial courts, he could eliminate one level of court at the county level. A law could be passed giving concurrent jurisdiction to the county court judges and there would just be the provincial court and the Supreme Court. Then the minister could start giving consideration at the Supreme Court level to having six or seven districts, as was suggested by the Carleton county bar. Within each district, there would be a number of Supreme Court judges who would move within the districts.

Looking at the process that is going on here, I agree with my colleague the member for Kitchener. I think he should be congratulated for making the suggestion that the experiment that is going on right now in the county of York be considered for other areas of Ontario. These are all ideas that make our court more efficient, and I think that is what the Attorney General is going to have to look at.

In the long term it seems to me that changes are not only going to have to be made at the provincial level. They are going to have to be made at another level too -- so that there will be, let us say, one provincial court and one Supreme Court. I think that is what exists in most other provinces; certainly it has existed in Quebec for quite some time and I think that system works.

The Carleton County Law Association initiated public discussion about the amalgamation of the county court and the Supreme Court and the setting up of districts for the Supreme Court. They have been getting widespread support from all areas of Ontario and from the public, and the public is going to start understanding that.

I think it is difficult to tell the public, "If your case happens to be less than $15,000, you are in county court, but if it is over $15,000, then you are in Supreme Court." I point out to the Attorney General that one of the examples cited in the brief happened this week. Cases were to start Monday morning in Ottawa Supreme Court. There was a snowstorm and the Supreme Court judges did not come down, so the case got started late. But it is going to be a short week; the judges want to get back to Toronto. So you do not want a case that is going to take any more than two days. That is the type of thing that is happening.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take any more time, but I do want to say --

Mr. Mackenzie: Sounds like a filibuster to me.

Mr. Roy: I find it ironic that member should even be discussing filibuster when his party has wasted three months of our time. That he would dare intercede --

Mr. Chairman: All right. Come on. It's Christmas.

Mr. Roy: Well, it's Christmas, but they have made it difficult.

Mr. Mackenzie: This one doesn't make any sense. That's the only difference.

Mr. Roy: I understand that you would not understand this. It is reaching a level that you have some difficulty appreciating.

In closing I want to say to the Attorney General that I think this is a positive step, a step that must be continued not only at the provincial court level but also at the county and Supreme Court levels. I encourage the Attorney General to give a more positive response to the brief of Carleton County Law Association than what I have been able to appreciate. He will understand that he is perceived as a Toronto boy who looks down on Ottawa and says: "You guys know the standardization. The barometer for the proper level of justice is Toronto, and we have to keep the rest of you in line."

Hon. Mr. Davis: Brampton.

Mr. Roy: Brampton is not even in the picture in law.

Mr. Conway: Now that His Honour Judge Boland is there.

Mr. Roy: That's right.

So in spite of the provocation that may be emanating from the Premier (Mr. Davis), I will complete my comments. I want to congratulate the Attorney General and my colleague the member for Kitchener for having initiated these changes. I am very supportive of them.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, first of all I have to take issue with the description given by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) of the Attorney General's views in so far as they relate to Ottawa lawyers. I have an extremely high regard for the Ottawa-Carleton bar, and I think the high esteem in which I hold my colleagues in that area is reflected in the very important fact that we are building a new courthouse in Ottawa. What could be a better indication of my own personal regard?

I will not add anything further to what I had to say about the interest in proposals the member for Ottawa East put forward in estimates with respect to merger. However, in so far as his remarks were addressed to the provincial court judges, the criminal, family and civil interchanging so far as responsibilities are concerned, I certainly would have no objection to that type of initiative. As a matter of fact, I have suggested it as something to be considered by some of the provincial judges' associations. I would be prepared as Attorney General to facilitate any administrative arrangements to allow judges from the different courts to sit in the other courts.

4:40 p.m.

I agree, at least in part, with some of the comments of the member for Ottawa East. At this point there has not been much enthusiasm for the idea from the judges and this is an initiative I think should come from the ranks of the judges themselves.

It is worthy of further discussion and perhaps the remarks of the member for Ottawa East will encourage further discussion among judges of the provincial court. That, of course, is the court which most of the citizens who have anything to do with the administration of justice see on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Outside of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

We will attempt to put some of these amendments. We passed section I and I have the benefit of counsel's program of events here. You will have to take me at my word that we have --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that since the Attorney General has read the amendments into the record, the House could agree that you put the amendments as read by the Attorney General. If they carry, the bill could then be reported in this instance.

Mr. Chairman: Great idea.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement.

Mr. Chairman: We have all heard the amendments as put by the Attorney General. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendments carry? Carried. Is it the pleasure of the committee that all sections of Bill 196, as amended, carry? Carried.

Bill 196, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 196, An Act to amend the Provincial Court (Civil Division) Project Act.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Wells, on behalf of Hon. F. S. Miller, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved resolution 9:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing January 1, 1983, and ending April 30, 1983, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the government is trying our patience with the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) yet again, but we will reluctantly support the motion.

We are hoping that when we return on January 17 the Treasurer will have something more concrete for us in the way of job creation programs. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned we would like to see a mini-budget and an up-to-date economic-state-of-the-province situation when we return. I say this reluctantly, but because it is Christmas and with that kind of co-operation we are willing to allow this motion to pass.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to be able to convey the feelings of my party with respect to this question to the Treasurer himself, but I know the government House leader (Mr. Wells) will immediately transmit our very strong views. As the Treasurer has gone to the meeting at Meech Lake and seen the consensus that job creation was the number one priority -- not only for the country, but also for each of the provinces -- we really do think it is incumbent on the government to come up with an economic package with respect to capital works, with respect to housing and with respect to jobs as soon as the House reconvenes in January.

We are in a sense acting entirely in good faith in letting this interim supply go without a debate. We could have kept the debate going in order to force the government's hand. However, since the Treasurer was at the meeting and since he has indicated he is prepared to move on the question, we do have every hope he will be before us on January 17 with a job creation program.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might just indicate that, as the members are aware, the estimates of the Treasurer and the Minister of Economics were debated yesterday for all the afternoon and evening --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister does not call that a debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and it was our understanding that it was an opportunity to have full discussion on the matter --

Mr. T. P. Reid: It did not happen.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and that occurred. I thank the members opposite for their encouragement in passing this motion now.

Motion agreed to.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 212, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief since I have given a rather detailed statement and some remarks on introduction for first reading.

Basically, the government feels it is prudent and responsible at this time to introduce a series of amendments that deal essentially with two issues related to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. We feel there is complete understanding on the part of the House and the public that a white paper will cover a number of issues we feel should be looked at with respect to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and, subsequently, with the intention to introduce legislation into this House. Consequently we feel it is appropriate at this time to introduce amendments which we feel are necessary and prudent with respect to the government's power and capacity to review and control loan and trust companies within the province.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to speak briefly on this bill. I just want to make a few points if I may.

There is no question that members of our party have agreed to speedy passage of this bill with first, second and third readings today -- to which I understand my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have also agreed. It was done on the request of the Premier and the minister and I believe in the circumstances it is the most responsible way for us in opposition to behave. As a result of that, we are going to support this bill.

It is not every day the Premier and a minister make this kind of request of an opposition party. In ordinary circumstances it is not the way I would prefer to conduct this opposition. But the reality is that this bill asks for some extraordinary powers in the circumstances, and the Premier and the minister deemed that time was of the essence -- that it had to be passed today and not on January 17 or in the next session.

4:50 p.m.

We have been most concerned about the potential situation this bill addresses. We are very much aware of our dual responsibility -- the responsibility to provide a vigorous opposition but also a responsibility, at the same time, to always be responsible. We are not having a tea party here this afternoon. We are giving the minister powers to look into, to trustee, trust companies on -- let us call it what it is -- the slimmest of pretexts. When the minister has information that leads him to believe he should move quickly he now has that power. He did not have that power prior to these amendments coming before this House.

We, in our party, have had a lot of discussions over the past couple of years with respect to the regulatory capacity and ability of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I do not want to go through the entire litany, but the minister will recall the Astra/Re-Mor affair which is still a long way from being settled, the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario, Argosy, and a variety of others. We are a party that believes very substantially that the obligation of the government is to guarantee as well as possible the security of the investors in the wide range of companies that come under the aegis of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

I am proud of the role my colleagues have played in this entire matter. We have been pointing out transactions that have transpired over the last couple of years. We believe that sufficient signals were forthcoming, that there should have been action before today. We regret very much that we are forced to grant these extraordinary powers without the thorough scrutiny that it deserves in the circumstances. But again, when requested by the minister and the Premier, and knowing what we do about the circumstances, we do feel it is warranted in these circumstances, and that is why we are going to support this act.

The Cadillac Fairview/Greymac/Kilderkin/numbered-companies series of transactions has provided a great deal of anguish for a lot of people, the least of whom would be the minister in these circumstances. He has probably been frustrated along the way trying to get a handle on this difficult and volatile series of transactions he has been struggling with. I believe he deserves and needs the power to deal with it in the best way possible and that only he can use his judgement, should the circumstances warrant it.

We do not know what those circumstances are. Whether he does or does not, probably at this point he is not in a position to share the information with this House or anyone else and I am not going to ask him that question at this time. He will be judged in retrospect, in the clear light of day, as to whether he used his authority wisely and well or whether he reacted too late in the circumstances.

My own view is that we are reacting too late. There were prima facie cases some months ago that merited a more thorough investigation by an agency that we would have called a judicial inquiry. We still think that probably will be necessary in the circumstances. The minister in his statement today acknowledges that if he cannot get all of the facts through the so-called Morrison inquiry, he is prepared to widen the study and go even further, should that be necessary.

We would have moved very quickly in the circumstances. Our position is on the record and we still think in the circumstances it was the correct one. I do not believe for a moment that had we had a royal commission or a judicial inquiry into this set of circumstances some time ago that it would have, in any way, prevented what is happening today or would have precluded the kind of action we are taking today. I think we would be far closer to knowing the truth on this set of circumstances, the various people involved, and whether there have been any violations of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

We have a very difficult problem with not actually knowing who the numbered companies involved are. In the circumstances the judicial officer could have had the capacity to penetrate that corporate veil and determine all the circumstances attendant thereto.

Our support for this legislation is contingent on a thorough review in the clear light of day when we are not under the same time pressures that we are under today.

I am glad the minister is going to be producing a white paper. My colleagues look forward to dealing with a new act -- making sure everyone's interests have been served. I do not have to remind the minister of the thousands of hours spent by my colleagues the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and many others who have worked so hard on the Astra/Re-Mor deal to try to bring that situation to justice and to light. It occupied the former leader of this party who so conscientiously fought for the people who were dispossessed through that series of transactions.

We have a grave responsibility in this House and I view the circumstance in that context. We have to make sure we are not alarmist, that we do not create anguish on the street. Frankly, I am one of those who is concerned there may be an overreaction by people who are observing the hasty passage of this bill today and I hope they do not draw any conclusions that are unwarranted in the circumstances.

The reality of this extraordinary situation, when we are asked for quick passage of a bill to give these extraordinary powers, is that a lot of serious-minded people will be asking a lot of serious questions tonight and tomorrow as they read about what we have done in this House. It is going to be our collective responsibility from all sides of this House to make sure we do not create any consternation that is unwarranted in the circumstances.

At the same time, I fundamentally believe it was our responsibility to make sure the minister acted in the circumstance. It was a long, difficult fight. Day after day we brought transactions to his attention that on the face of them at least appeared to be violations of the act. The cumulative effect was something that had to be looked into by the minister.

I still do not know at this point whether the minister, Mr. Morrison and the various other inquiries have got to the root of some of these problems. I guess I have to take some of that on faith. We have been asked as an act of faith in the minister to give him these powers so he can act in his best judgement, should the situation warrant it.

The minister will be judged in retrospect. I reserve my right to judge him and the way in which he uses the powers we give him in the act, such as whether he did it too soon, too late or whether he should have acted at all, and indeed what he does with this new act.

I could talk about some of the technical aspects of the act. I am not going to do that. I do not think that is constructive in the circumstances. Speedy passage is very much called for, and that is why I and my colleagues are prepared to grant these powers to the minister.

I wish this was the end of the whole so-called Greymac/Cadillac Fairview/Kilderkin deal. It is not. I am sure we will be discussing this matter in the House over a long period of time, but at least now the minister will have the powers he requested to deal with this situation as he feels he should in the circumstances. So it is with some regret, and on the other hand with some hope that he will use these powers wisely and well, that we in this party are prepared to grant them to him this afternoon.

5 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this legislation, but I would appreciate some answers to some specific questions that I will be putting to the minister in the course of my remarks this afternoon. I know the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) also has some questions and comments with regard to the previous history of earlier legislation that was proposed by a select committee of this Legislature.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), the leader of the Liberal Party, has indicated that there is a need for all of us to strike a balance between our concern about the circumstances that have given rise to this legislation and the very real need for all of us to exercise some real responsibility and not to paint too broad or wide a picture, thus causing a loss of confidence in certain financial institutions in which all of us should continue to have confidence.

I simply want to say that has been the way in which we have always conducted ourselves. That certainly was the attitude I took as I left the meeting the member for Riverdale and I had with the minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis) yesterday when they discussed the proposed legislation with us in very general terms, and that is certainly the position our caucus takes with regard to this particular legislation and this particular matter.

At the same time, I do think the House is entitled to know whether there are particular circumstances or transactions that are taking place or contemplated that the minister had in mind when introducing this legislation. I say that because it seems to me that unless the minister is prepared to tell us whether there are such transactions, he is encouraging wider speculation than needs to exist. That is why I think there is an obligation on the minister to tell us whether there are particular transactions he had in mind in introducing this legislation and precisely what the concerns of the government were with regard to the absence of legislation in that regard.

I cannot resist the temptation of saying to the minister that if we were the government --

Mr. Nixon: I am not commenting.

Mr. Rae: I ask the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) to suspend disbelief for a moment.

Mr. Nixon: I am right with the member, phrase for phrase, waiting for it to get good.

Mr. Rae: If we were the government and we called upon members of opposition parties to support the proposition that the cabinet should be able to take over a trust company whenever it feels it is in the public interest to do so, which basically is the power granted by subsection 3(1) of this act, I would suspect the legislation would take more than a few minutes to get through the Legislature.

I see the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) -- I think he is still awake; I see him nodding his head there, I think in agreement.

Mr. Nixon: We would suspect your motives. You would want to nationalize trust companies, wouldn't you? And, after that, insurance companies and natural resources.

Mr. Rae: Now my friend has mentioned that word. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said we intend to nationalize the insurance companies. I do not know whether he intends to nationalize the insurance companies, but I cannot resist the irony of the situation where we are, in effect, in this legislation, granting some extraordinary powers to the cabinet with respect to the conduct of business of trust companies. I say to the minister that anyone reading this legislation would say the government must have had something in mind or must have had some concerns in mind with respect to certain transactions, and I think we are entitled to an answer to that question.

I want to say a very brief word about valuation, because the minister raised it in his statement today. The minister expressed concern on page 3 of his statement and raised a number of questions, asking, "What does 'value' mean in this context?" This is the sort of philosophical, almost Talmudic way the minister has of talking from time to time: "What does 'value' mean in this context? Does it mean 'fair market value,' and, if so, how do you take into account elements of 'value' that may be attributed to tax benefits that may arise out of the way the property is financed?"

I want to say to the minister that it is not good enough to ask those questions in the academic manner in which they are asked in this statement, for the simple reason that if the government has genuine concerns about valuation, then I think the government has to come clean and tell us it has those concerns. If there are a number of trust companies that have taken out mortgages on the basis of values which only can be described as inflated as a result of certain valuation techniques, I think the minister has an obligation to tell us that is now the view of the ministry.

The minister will understand the reason I am saying that; it is that there are depositors and shareholders of trust companies who do have a legitimate concern if it is the view of the ministry that certain properties have been overvalued as a result of their using either replacement value, flow-through or certain assumptions on the basis of tax benefits that no longer would be there. If the assumption of valuation by a number of trust companies was an assumption about rent control and about the kind of pass-throughs that would have been permissible prior to this House's consideration of the pass-through legislation, the minister knows perfectly well that in a sense the government is contributing to the devaluation of certain properties.

I do not mean that in a pejorative sense at all. If the values have been overvalued because of an assumption about rent review not looking into certain transactions when it is the overwhelming view of the Legislature that it should be looking into certain transactions, then I suggest to the minister that is a problem which the government and the registrar are going to have to deal with. It is a problem the parameters of which none of us knows, but nevertheless I think we can raise these questions because it seems to me they deserve to be answered.

With respect to valuation, the minister has said he can assure the House that even clarifying the meaning of this one word is not a simple matter to resolve, nor is it easy to predict the practical consequences of any particular meaning that may be put on it. I think the minister has an obligation to be a little clearer, certainly when it comes to making a statement in the House in January, than he has been with respect to this question of valuation.

The registrar has an obligation to be a little clearer too, if the registrar is going to be putting terms and conditions upon the operation of certain trust companies that would require a different form of valuation. It seems to me that is an important question, and I do not think it can be dealt with simply by raising a number of questions in the minister's statement. It seems to me that what we want from the minister is the answer to those questions rather than him simply raising the questions.

I am not pretending for a moment that the answer to those questions is easy. I am not pretending it is not a delicate and difficult question and a debatable question when one is looking at assets valued at millions of dollars and the conduct of companies that have assets of millions of dollars. I am suggesting that the fact it is a difficult question to answer does not mean it should not be answered, and it does not mean it does not have to be answered by the government.

I suggest to the minister, as I suggested in question period today, if the minister has certain concerns with respect to the conduct of any trust company, he has an obligation to make that clear, or at least to set the process clearly in motion by which that question of valuation will be made clear, and to give us some indication of when he expects that question to be finally determined or determined as far as the companies in question are concerned.

Let me raise two other questions. First, I want to say how pleased I am that the minister has gone as far as he has in the last paragraph of his statement with regard to the Morrison inquiry in his determination to get to the bottom of the transactions and his commitment to broaden the inquiry if that proves necessary by January. That is exactly the kind of commitment we in our party were looking for from this government with respect to that series of transactions.

I am pleased and I appreciate, particularly after the disparaging things he had to say about me last week in the debate on this very question, that the minister now has decided to recognize the unwisdom of some of those remarks and to agree that it makes sense to broaden the inquiry if we cannot get the information we need under the Loans and Trust Corporations Act.

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it proper to say "unwisdom"?

Mr. Rae: The Premier, who has a great future teaching English as a second or even third language to whoever would want to learn it from him, has some nerve asking me whether "unwisdom" is a word.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just asked a question.

Mr. Rae: I think it is a word. I will consult the appropriate sources and send him that information as quickly as I possibly can.

Mr. Nixon: I think it's a beautiful word. It's like "irregardless."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is a word. I believe you.

Mr. Rae: It is a word. It is a more polite word than "stupidity," and I was not about to accuse the minister of that.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, now it's getting degenerate.

Mr. Rae: No, that is what I am saying; unwisdom, the lack of wisdom, covers what I wanted to say rather than any other word.

With regard to the minister's statement about a white paper and future legislation, I do want to say that having been in another place where I had responsibility for financial legislation --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you ever miss the other place?

Mr. Rae: Never. Not even in my direst moments. Not even on the day of the calendar did I miss the other place.

I have had some experience with waiting for white papers and waiting for legislation from governments with respect to trust companies and finance companies and banks. I want to say to the minister that one of the reasons we are supporting this legislation in the form we are supporting it is precisely that I know it is going to raise some hackles and some concerns in the marketplace. I know it is going to raise some concerns and hackles even among some members of his own party.

I see the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) smiling as he looks at this draconian legislation, this piece of socialist legislation that has been introduced by his government. I know how uncomfortable he feels when he has to stand up and support this kind of legislation. It is precisely because of the discomfort --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You will never know, Bob.

Mr. Rae: My friend says I will never know. I do not think that is true. They have a way of letting us know what is on their minds, using that term in its loosest sense, and we have a way of finding out.

I simply want to indicate to the minister that we are going to hold him to his word with respect to new legislation and the white paper. In particular, we expect the white paper to deal with questions that we think are quite basic to the kinds of trust and faith that people need to have in all their financial institutions and that are quite basic to the conduct of trust companies in the province.

My colleague the member for Riverdale will be dealing with the history of some of these matters. This is not a new promise. This is not a new commitment from this government. They have been committed to introducing legislation with respect to loan and trust companies and other financial institutions for a long time. It is a question that has been discussed in a committee of this House. It is a question on which there are reports that, from the ones I have been able to gather this morning, can be stacked fairly high on the desk.

I simply say to the minister that we expect to have that legislation next year. In 1983, the legislation has to be presented to the House, not in an unnumbered fashion but in a numbered fashion, with a clear indication that it is legislation which the government expects to go to committee and expects to have approved by the House, and on which it is prepared to hear from all sides of the House with respect to amendments.

For the record, the minister should know that our concerns have to do with disclosure, as I am sure he has heard. Our concerns are not only about disclosure in terms of the names and identities of shareholders and controlling shareholders and of controlling interests in trust companies but also about disclosure that affects the rights of consumers and gives consumers the kind of protection they need when dealing with financial institutions.

We believe we need some provision that restricts the degree of concentration in our financial institutions and limits the number of shares that can be purchased and owned at any one time by any one person or corporation. The minister will be aware that the federal legislation that has been proposed in its current form calls for that kind of limitation. We believe those restrictions are necessary.

We also believe it is necessary to control the kinds of other assets and other institutions and so forth that trust companies can own. They are no longer small-time institutions; they are very big institutions, as the minister will know. We also believe it is time the government took steps to gain some degree of permanent control over aspects of our credit system and started to be much more creative in terms of using the collective assets and savings of the people of Ontario for the benefit of the people of Ontario so that we can provide the kind of housing and social construction and so on which we think is an extremely important part of the expectations of the average Ontarian.

Having made those remarks, I want to say to the minister again that this is not the end of the road. The government might think it has got itself off the hook. We are of the opinion that the government has firmly implanted itself on the hook, because the minister and the registrar now have the clear and undeniable authority to do those things and to ask those questions that we have been requesting of the minister during this past session with respect to the Cadillac Fairview transaction and other transactions.

I just want to give the minister the assurance -- as well as wishing him and his family a very happy Christmas, of course, and I see his wife in the gallery -- that when he comes back, if he thinks the fall was a hot time he is going to find that the spring session will be even hotter.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak somewhat briefly about the bill that is in front of us and the circumstances in which we are debating the bill today.

I personally do not consider that the process yesterday, while it was somewhat unusual, necessarily need be put out of perspective. We were specifically asked by the Premier and the minister to pass this bill through all of its stages in one day. Subject to the discussion we had in our caucus this morning, when agreement was reached that, yes, we would support the passage of this bill through all its stages in one day, I felt and my leader felt, and our caucus agreed, that there were urgent and compelling reasons why the bill should be passed during one day and become law.

In case anybody is burning the midnight oil in any of the offices of the loan and trust corporations with respect to their share registers, I want to comment simply that it is my understanding that this bill, if it is passed and receives royal assent today, will have been in force from 12:01 a.m. this morning -- I do not want anybody to misunderstand that -- and that there is no leeway available for backdating transfers as though it were some kind of mechanical action that should have taken place yesterday and they are really just cleaning up their business.

I am extremely concerned, and I want the minister to understand that after reading his statement and listening to the statement he made I think the time has come today when he must take this House into his confidence about that sentence in his statement where he simply says, "However, we are aware of activity in the loan and trust field that as a matter of prudent administration should be subject to review and, where required by the public interest, controlled."

That is why the bill is here today. It is not just a warning to existing companies that they should look to their affairs and make certain that they tailor their affairs to this new world; nor is it simply to say to the old, established companies that they need not be concerned about it, that it really does not affect them because they have always complied with the law. There are very specific reasons for the urgency of this bill and for the desire of the government, which we share, as I have stated, to have it passed in one day.

I would like the minister to escape for once from the thrall of the business interests with which this government is enshrouded and bring the assembly into his confidence about the activity that requires this bill. What is going to take place today, tomorrow, the next day? What were the rumours on the street? What was the concern that led the government to introduce this bill?

I find it also somewhat passing strange, if I may say so, to have the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- recognizing as I do that he has not been in that office all that long -- try to say to us that the act may not contain the powers to adequately deal with the economic times and changes in business practices that now confront us. It does not contain them and that is the reason the bill is here. It is here for very special and precise reasons, and I think the assembly is entitled today, as it was not yesterday, to know why these provisions are there and what the targets are to which the legislation is addressed.

I may say that in so far as I can read the bill, and perhaps the minister will confirm it for me, it does not affect, certainly so far as the transfer of shares is concerned, the processes of amalgamation of Greymac and Crown Trust. I may be quite wrong but certainly as I understand it at this time, the top company, Greymac Credit Corp., wholly owns Greymac Trust and something like 96 per cent of the voting shares or of all the shares outstanding in Crown Trust and will be proposing to amalgamate the two companies.

As regards the transfers that have taken place and the exchanges that may be necessary with respect to the small minority interest still outstanding in the hands of shareholders in Crown Trust in the processes of amalgamation, I wish to know from the minister whether he intends to move to inhibit the amalgamation of those two companies or whether this bill is designed in any way to affect that amalgamation.

I cannot speculate on other areas. All I know is that there have been sufficient rumours on the street to prompt the government to act in this way. I would like very much to have the government tell us in this assembly this afternoon exactly what has taken place.

I am always the first one to be delighted to see the legislative process thwart the arcane practices of the high-priced practitioners in the fields of law and accountancy dealing with corporate security taxation in conveyancing matters, so the minister has my total personal support from that point of view, but I think it is important that we do know and understand what is taking place.

Another part of the statement astounded me, and I am not going to take a great deal of time other than to recall to the House what has gone on over the years.

5:20 p.m.

I believe my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) was with me on the select committee on company law at that time when we dealt with the loan and trust corporations. The report was tabled in this assembly in 1975, and nothing has been done since that time with respect to the report of the select committee on loan and trust corporations, which was then under the chairmanship of the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), who was in his seat a few minutes ago.

In that report, we urged a review of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act which, with respect, and subject to minor amendments that took place in the late 1940s, is a bill that has existed in this assembly in its present form since 1912.

I find it passing strange for the minister to come before us and tell us that "it is not an area of legislation where one makes snap judgements to change fundamental principles or relationships that have been followed and applied for years." I find it strange that he can be talking at this point about a white paper and a revision of the law on loan and trust corporations when there has sat rotting on shelves in his ministry, for some seven years now, the report, many of whose recommendations, if enacted into law over a period of time two, three or four years ago, would not have required this kind of activity in which we are engaged today.

There are two or three areas where I want to take a few minutes to indicate to the minister that we do not accept the view that this 1912 -- it was amended in some minor particulars in the 1940s and barely touched since that time, but subject to the scrutiny and review that followed upon the collapse of, I believe it was the British Mortgage and Trust Co., if I have the name correctly, in Stratford, which had to be bailed out by Victoria and Grey Trust during the time of the Premiership of the late John P. Robarts.

That was what triggered the select committee on company law, along with a number of other financial collapses; that is collapses of companies whose inventory is money and nothing else but money and which attract people who want to make money on money, which I guess is the ultimate definition of capitalism.

As I had begun to say, it is just difficult to believe the view that somehow or other this particular bill needs to be brought in under these auspices. We accept that that is the way this government has operated. It has had a very tender regard for the collection of interests in both the insurance field and in the loan and trust field.

On the select committee we were subject to the tender regard of the trust companies association. On no occasion did we meet, either here or in London, England, or in New York City, without having at least one representative of the loan and trust corporations with us to make certain that we did not stray into the path of the public interest rather than their own personal interest in these matters. It was all done in a very gentlemanly and polite way.

It has not escaped me, and I am sure it would not escape the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) or my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), that there is an amazing analogy in the structures of the companies that defrauded the public in the Argosy group of companies; that particular model obviously has been used with much greater sophistication and with much more skilled advice to stay strictly within the law but to carry out the same kind of hidden, secret, corporate manoeuvres about public moneys which we have seen in the transactions that have been of such concern to this House practically throughout the months of November and December in connection with the Cadillac/Greymac operation.

I was pleased that the minister was forthright today about the desire of the government to understand what the transaction was and what was the framework and the ingredients that led to the transaction. It is an understanding, first of all, that is absolutely essential. The minister has confirmed that if the investigation under section 152 is not adequate for that purpose, it will be extended. We accepted that commitment by the government, and we expect and understand that the minister will live up to it.

I hope he will not take too long to decide that it is necessary to extend the authority of Mr. Morrison to make the investigation. It is patently clear that it is not possible by simply examining the books and affairs, particularly of the trust corporations that have been involved in this whole transaction, to meet the requirement of full understanding of that transaction as it is necessary for us to understand.

I am sorry; apparently I have caused a fire.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is right. I just want to bring the members' attention to the fact that the fire alarm is on in the building. Apparently it is on the second floor. There is no need to evacuate the building yet, but we will keep everyone informed.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: I want to refer very briefly to a few sections of the 1975 report of the select committee on company law on loan and trust corporations. What was the first statement made in that report? Having reviewed the history of loan and trust corporations, the select committee had this to say about them:

"Trust companies have proved the amazing adaptability of the trust concept and its usefulness in serving the capital formation requirements of the consumer public. In making legislative changes, the Ontario Legislature should be mindful of the importance of strengthening loan corporations and trust companies as important financial institutions and of encouraging their further development to serve the needs, particularly amongst the consumer public, for highly efficient facilities for capital accumulation and capital borrowing and for efficient fiduciary services."

That was what we felt was essential with respect to the trust companies. We then went on to recommend that "loan and trust corporations should continue to be subject to their own separate legislation in Ontario and that the act relating to such corporations be completely revised and redrafted consistent with the specific recommendations of this report."

If the government had taken into consideration the recommendations with respect to the preconditions of incorporation of an Ontario corporation, with respect to the preconditions of the registration of any corporation, whether Ontario, federal or extraprovincial, in this province, and with respect to the preconditions that would have had to be established in order that the annual licence of any one of those companies could be renewed, I believe we would not be in the kind of difficulty we are in today.

We had recommended, not only for the incorporation of an Ontario corporation but also for the registration of any loan and trust corporation in Ontario, and with respect to the annual renewal, that the following requirements be met: (a) the fitness both as to character and as to competence of the proposed management, applicants, permanent directors and executive officers to manage a loan or trust company; (b) assurance that the persons who own and are providing and control the funds put forward to finance the proposed company are themselves responsible; (c) assurance that a financially viable operation is proposed or, in the case of extraprovincial and federal companies, that those companies are in a financial condition where the interests of the public who invested their money by way of deposit or by way of investment in other instruments to represent their loans, would have confidence. We then went on to deal with two or three other matters. Those particular items would have gone a long way towards ensuring the kind of inherent calibre and capacity of the loan and trust people to be able to deal with these companies. One must not forget for one moment that the use of the word "trust" in a corporation is in itself a most valuable commodity. A trust company in Ontario has a very special and particular relationship to members of the public, especially to members of the public in a riding such as Riverdale. I want to say that one does not tamper with the term "trust corporation," or with the way in which they are operated, without having to accept very severe penalties if the public interest is in any way abused.

We went on to deal with share transfers. We did not make any specific recommendations to amend the present provision which is being amended in the bill that now is before us. But we foresaw the kind of problems --

Interjection.

Mr. Renwick: If the Leader of the Opposition would let me speak to the minister, I would really appreciate it. Perhaps I could wait until the conversation is completed.

In 1975, the committee had this to say with reference to the transfer of shares: "The committee has concluded that it does not wish to recommend any changes to the act in this connection but does wish to record the fact that it would be a matter of concern to the committee should control of Ontario corporations" -- that was a defined term meaning Ontario trust companies or loan corporations -- "become concentrated within a relatively few corporate groups." That warning was there in 1975, but nothing took place in connection with it.

There are many other references in this report to the failure of the government to have the law of loan and trust corporations updated. To have thought for a moment that a select committee could have anything useful to say about loan and trust corporations is something that the members of that ministry have great difficulty in understanding.

On page 107 and the following pages of the report, we recommended very specifically protections for shareholders of corporations. I am going to refer to only two specifically, although there were many others we recommended. One was, "Accordingly, the committee recommends that the act be amended by adding thereto a new section in the same terms as" -- what was then -- "section 99 of the Business Corporations Act," which was to provide for a derivative action to the courts by a minority shareholder to protect the corporation when the directors of the corporation were not prepared to protect it.

We made a further recommendation that, "The committee considers that it would present a further safeguard if, in addition to the regulatory controls under the act, a shareholder or a creditor had a statutory right to seek an order" -- an order from the registrar -- "requiring a corporation, or a director, officer or employee of a corporation to comply with any provision of the act" -- that is, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act -- "the charter or the bylaws of the corporation." The committee went on at great length recommending protections for shareholders, some protections for creditors, and expressing a very deep and real concern.

It is fair to say that, as my leader said, the minister raised the question of "value" in a delightfully philosophical way, asking what the word "value" really means. I am not suggesting that the hybrid version of "value," as the word is used by highly priced practitioners trying to make a fast buck in fiduciary organizations, was in existence at the time. What I am saying is that if the recommendations we made in this report had been substantially adopted, if there had been a new statute on the books, it would have been much more unlikely that the sophisticated revision of the term "value" so that fraudulent purposes could be accomplished would have happened. Then we would have had an opportunity, in an orderly way, to consider this bill.

I have tried to study the minutia of the terms of the specific amendments. I believe they appear to be adequate to accomplish the purposes that are required. I do not believe that a committee of the whole House could usefully amend those provisions by making some changes and trying to understand them. I take the technical draftsmanship to be accurate in reflecting the purposes the minister has put forward. I notice very clearly in this bill that for the first time the registrar is going to be given powers, under the new section 158a, not only with respect to Ontario trust companies -- that is, trust and loan corporations incorporated under the laws of Ontario -- but also with respect to the assets, as I understand it, within the province of federally incorporated trust companies, or trust companies incorporated elsewhere in Canada.

5:40 p.m.

I wanted to take the time to make these comments so that we do not think that somehow or other this was an ad hoc piece of legislation and all is good and well in the world of loan and trust corporations legislation. It is far behind and drastically outdated. It is no excuse for the minister to tell us that we cannot make snap decisions about it.

Over the years, the government has been in default in failing to bring in a long time ago the kinds of amendments and revisions of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act which were reflected in that report. One pays the price down the road for not having done it. We are not playing a political role in this thing, but many of the problems the government has faced are due to the inability of this ministry over the years to modernize and adapt the law of loan and trust corporations to the exigencies and changes in business practices of the 1970s, let alone the 1980s.

We look forward to the white paper and a revision of the law in due course. We will certainly be wanting very serious consideration of those proposals. The minister has assured us they are finally going to come in the early days of 1983.

I close by saying that I want the minister to take the House into his confidence now with respect to however the present activity in the loan and trust field requires this legislation today. What is going to happen tomorrow, Friday or next week that he does not want to happen? What is he going to do about it, either with respect to the first principle in the bill, that is, control over transfers of shares which would give a larger than 10 per cent controlling interest or with respect to the very elaborate provisions of extension of powers granted to the registrar under the proposed new section 158a?

We support the bill. We have agreed with the passage of the bill in all of its stages in one day. We hope it accomplishes the purpose. We would like the courtesy to be told why. Thank you.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my comments on this item of legislation. I believe this minister is paying the political price for what I consider to be gross negligence on the part of a number of his predecessors in their truculence, reluctance, call it what you may, and their continuing inability to address themselves to the obvious deficiencies in the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

While I have not been in the minister's office at 555 Yonge Street, they have had so many ministers it probably should not say "Dr. Elgie" on it, it should say "Occupant." More than anything, that has resulted in the lack of understanding of the obvious deficiencies that exist in this legislation.

Personally, I do not find any great pleasure in blaming the minister in a political sense for the ongoing difficulties his ministry has had. We have heard the litany of failures in the past. I have articulated them here in this House, as have other members. We are all too painfully aware that the pattern is invariably the same on almost every single occasion: Co-operative Health Services of Ontario, Argosy, Astra/ReMor. In fact, some of the same players find themselves inextricably involved in several of those awful fiascos.

The government should have known a minimum of two years ago, when the Astra/Re-Mor matter reared its ugly head in Ontario, that the current legislation was woefully inadequate and grossly deficient. Moreover, I think it should have been painfully obvious to the minister, and more important to the people within his ministry, that a little more diligence was required in the administration of the act we already have.

Over the Christmas holidays, the minister might want to reflect briefly on the transcripts of the justice committee. He will not find it very exciting reading, if he has not read it already. Testimony was given before us, most of it sworn, indicating just how Astra became licensed under the current Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

He will read clearly the testimony given to us by one of his many predecessors, Mr. Clement, and will see that, contrary to what has been advanced in the media and occasionally in this House, the Astra aspect of the Astra/Re-Mor fiasco was not entirely a federal matter. The matter emanated from the inadequacies of the enforcement of this current item of legislation and the act itself.

It has been raised many times. That more than anything will give him a microcosm of the deficiencies that exist in that act itself. I do not think it will be presumptuous whatsoever to advance this view: had these amendments been in place two or three years ago, or in advance of the licensing of Astra Trust, I suggest Carlo Montemurro and that happy band of his, who are still on the loose, would not have been able to persuade the government to obtain the licensing they used, which to date has caused so much pain and so much agony for so many people who were not speculators but were depositors.

In a matter of only two months it will be two years to the day since our Premier indicated during the course of a political campaign that we would have a swift and expeditious hearing of this matter so those people who have been abused and have lost their life savings would get them back if the courts determined it.

We have a question raised by my colleague and good friend the member for St. Catharines, who has yet again raised that matter in this forum, to request that the money be paid to the people who have been done out of it.

I would say to the minister, reflect on those questions, reflect on the commitment made by our Premier to have a swift and expeditious hearing of this matter, since it is now on the verge of being two years to the day since that promise was made, and contemplate during the course of Christmas possibly paying those people who have been done out of a lot of money.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, those of us who had the opportunity to sit on the justice committee through the difficult days of fall 1980, December 1980, and January and early February 1981, recognize the ramifications of this bill. Many of us would have hoped amendments of this kind would have been in place well before that scam operated in Ontario.

To use an old adage, this is somewhat like closing the door after the horse is not only out of the barn but is well on his way to Switzerland with the money. As a result, a lot of people are out of pocket. These are not wealthy investors. They are small investors. Many of their life savings were placed in a company known as Re-Mor and, for that reason, I think in hindsight we would recognize it would have been beneficial to have had this bill many years ago.

I suppose those who talk about British Mortgage and Trust and Atlantic Acceptance could also have taken some consolation from the fact that legislation of this kind would have been in place.

I asked a supplementary question not long ago to a question on Argosy by the member for Riverdale, who has an interest in Argosy as well. The minister would be aware the Ombudsman has investigated, or is trying to investigate, the Argosy situation. He has not been successful in obtaining the necessary documents because it is contended by the Ministry of the Attorney General these are items that are required for court cases and for police investigations.

We also have the example of Astra Trust and the example of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario where people were done out of their money, people who thought they were investing in a government sanctioned and supervised institution and were led astray by the fact that somehow there was a stamp of approval placed on the financial institution by the provincial government.

I well recall my colleague the member for Kitchener first raising this matter in committee back in the spring of 1980. A lot of people forget that, but it was the member for Kitchener who first spotted that. Along with the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and the former member for Lincoln, Ross Hall, he questioned the then minister, the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), in some detail on this matter. This is how it began, and then the questioning in the fall.

5:50 p.m.

Naturally we are in the position of supporting this piece of legislation, because it is going to be necessary under the present circumstances, but certainly the minister is not able to pat himself on the back as a result of bringing it in at this time. Had the government done this four or five years ago, we would have joined in the great applause for whoever the minister would have been at the time to bring in such legislation. Now it is only a tiny tap on the desk for the minister who is bringing this in to deal with what amounts to an emergency circumstance. But it does little good for those, particularly in the Re-Mor situation, who are out of pocket because of the lack of such legislation. At least, that is one factor.

In concluding my remarks this afternoon I once again implore the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because his ministry and the government did not have the foresight to introduce legislation of this kind before, to pay the compensation that would provide at least belated justice to the victims of Re-Mor, who have been waiting a long time and who have been dragged through the courts and other processes in an attempt to get this justice.

I know that the minister, being a man who recognizes what justice is -- he has legal training; he is a fair man on so many occasions -- would want to act very early in the new year. I asked him earlier today to act at this time; he is not prepared to, but he will be prepared to act early in the new year to redress the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the Re-Mor victims, by providing the kind of compensation that will at least alleviate some of their financial concerns in the months and years ahead.

The Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? No. Then, in conclusion, the minister.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What's wrong with you? Put your hand on that. You heard what the member for St. Catharines said: I deserve a tap. Now tap that table.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There we are: one tap. One tap from the wrong side is probably worth something; I am not sure what, but it is probably worth something.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Premier, why do you keep going to desks where there are apples, may I ask? You have stolen so many today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am a great believer in Ontario apples, and I see some going to waste.

Mr. Kerrio: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, you can't keep the doctor away from you. I'll get at you one day, Vince. You never know.

Mr. Martel: Bridling free enterprise again; so much for capitalism.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Sudbury East, I want to speak on behalf of the free enterprise system in this province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I don't. He wouldn't want me to do that, Mr. Speaker.

My remarks will be brief and, I hope, responsive to many of the issues raised; and where they are not, I trust that members will have consideration for some of the comments I may have with respect to that.

The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the bill and supported the powers the government is seeking in it, and he made some comments with respect to extraordinary powers. Before one accepts this on the face of it as really what the bill represents, I think we should all remember that if one wishes to incorporate a trust company today in this province it is necessary to go through a certain process of approval with respect to the fitness of the person or persons and with respect to the need and the public interest involved in the establishment of such a trust company.

The principle of having the same type of approval process with respect to the transfer of ownership of an existing trust company does not, therefore, seem to me to be such an unusual or extraordinary power, and I suspect that most in this room at this time would agree with that.

The other aspect of the bill relates to the government's power through the registrar to control the operations and/or assets of the corporation and to impose terms and conditions, should it be deemed necessary in certain circumstances. Again, I would not want the public or others who may be reading this debate to think that too is an extraordinary power. Members will remember very clearly that we stood in this assembly last December and inserted the exact same powers into the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

So we are not talking about some strange new powers that have been dreamt up on the spur of the moment. I think we are looking at prudent and responsible measures that the government feels at this time should be introduced in anticipation of a broader review of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Several members have commented on the Astra/Re-Mor matter and some have suggested if these amendments had been in --

Mr. McClellan: Free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Why doesn't the member for Bellwoods sit over here on this side so we could hear him more clearly?

Mr. Breaugh: Put it in writing.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Would he be welcome here?

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sorry, I apologize. I was speaking for myself and not for all; maybe not even for myself, but anyway I was speaking.

Some members were commenting on Astra/Re-Mor and suggesting that perhaps had these amendments been in place two years ago those events might not have taken place. Let me point out a couple of things. First of all, Re-Mor was not a mortgage loan company, Re-Mor was a mortgage broker. Let me point out that the only trust company involved was the federally incorporated Astra Trust. Let me point out --

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, because it should not be left incomplete, the harsh fact of reality is that Astra was licensed by this very item of legislation that we are debating today. Let there be no misconception.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member, in his anxiety, was afraid that I would leave it at that; but I am saying, having clearly recognized in that situation that there was some inadequacy in the manner in which that trust company was being supervised, these amendments might well have played a role with respect to Astra Trust and with respect to the fact that company had been given a charter.

I am very appreciative of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. Again, as I have said to him, the government will be introducing a white paper. It would be my hope to have legislation before this House next year. In any event, I did give the member an undertaking that if that were not the case -- I do not anticipate it -- that we might look at the white paper and some committee process.

To the member for York South (Mr. Rae), I promise I will never raise that issue again with him. I made that commitment to him. I always keep commitments private so I will not talk about what they were. That is an old rule I learned when I was a practising neurosurgeon. I will not talk about the commitment I made to him when he was over here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was usually made when the patients were under the anaesthetic.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was usually made when the patient was under anaesthetic? No, it was not; it was a commitment I made when they were wide awake.

Again, the member asked what particular circumstances or transactions I had in mind. The member for Riverdale made reference to a portion of my statement in which I said, "We are aware of activity in the loan and trust field that as a matter of prudent administration should be subject to review and, where required by the public interest, controlled."

Clearly what we have seen this fall is acquisition of trust companies. Clearly that is exactly the sort of thing that is intended by that statement. The government feels it is prudent and responsible to apply the same principle to transfers as it does to the starting up of a new trust company. There is nothing more cynical or more sinister about it than that.

The member for York South also, in what I thought was a rather praiseworthy way, complimented the government for introducing legislation of this sort and implied that it would enable him and his party, in the not too likely possibility they ever came to power, to take over the world with this sort of legislation, which clearly means we have to get a new bill in place to make sure that never happens. But perhaps it would never happen anyway and perhaps we can all rest on the assurance that the bill could stay in for another 40 years and the unlikely takeover of the province's loan and trust industry might never occur.

6 p.m.

But I do agree with him completely in this regard. The loan and trust companies have a special fiduciary relationship to their depositors and they have a special relationship and obligation to the public, because through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. the deposits of the public are protected. That therefore imposes special responsibilities on them and I think that sort of special responsibility more than justifies the type of powers which the government is suggesting and asking for in the amendments before the House.

The issue of valuation is a difficult one and I appreciate that the member for York South and the member for Riverdale would like me to stand here today and say what that is. But frankly that is an issue which will be under consideration. That is an issue which the Morrison examination is addressing itself to at the very moment.

I hope the member understands that with genuine differences of opinion about the meaning of that it is impossible for me at this time to comment on what the position of this ministry will be as we proceed with the special examination. Those are matters we will have to deal with as they proceed. But clearly that will be one of the issues which will have to be discussed as we review the process and come up with a white paper.

The member for York South and the member for Riverdale commented on my commitment on the last page of my statement where I made it clear that if the necessary information was not forthcoming from any of the companies involved in the transactions we would take steps necessary to broaden our inquiry. I would like to think that is not a new commitment. I recall having stated several times in this House that our options were open and I was not precluding a number of different types of approaches. To me, that commitment was just a reaffirmation of what I had already said, but I am pleased both parties in the opposition feel that is an important matter to clarify.

Again, comments were made about the white paper and the content in it, and the particular wish that the issue of disclosure be discussed. I would remind the interested members in the House that the bill before us, in subsection 2(4), allows the registrar from time to time, in writing, to direct a corporation to obtain from any person in whose name a share of the corporation is held or beneficially owned, a declaration concerning certain matters. I would submit that section permits the registrar to obtain information with respect to beneficial ownership in great detail.

I understand that is not what some members would support. I understand they would support the principle that it is an ongoing obligation of the corporation to report that information from time to time as it was deemed appropriate; but since this is an issue that clearly is contained in this bill, the issue of disclosure, and since I have already said the white paper will cover matters raised in this bill, I think members will agree that the issue of disclosure will therefore be part of any white paper consideration.

The issue on concentration of power, as I mentioned to the House before, is one that is now in the white paper of the federal government. We will be interested in their comments and we will be considering whether or not that too should be an item that is considered in the white paper.

I regret the member feeling that the spring will be an even hotter session. I have not felt this has been a hot session. It has been cool, calm, relaxed, going out to dinner with -- never mind who he went to dinner with on occasion -- but it is usually a very pleasant sort of relationship in this House. If it seemed hot to the member perhaps he had the wrong -- no, I am not going to mention what he had in his hand. I promise; never mind.

I am looking forward to the spring session and to the winter session with anticipation, because whether it is hot or warm it will always be pleasant in here.

The member for Riverdale asked specifically and repeatedly for me to outline what activity led to the introduction of this bill. A special examination is taking place before this ministry at the moment, under section 152, into the conduct of the business of a number of companies. I really do not think that he should expect this minister to reveal at this time, in the absence of a full and complete report from that investigation, the information that is available to him.

I think that is the kind of obligation and responsibility a minister has in this office. I hope he will understand me when I indicate I am not prepared to outline it in detail, nor do I have that kind of information at my fingertips to provide to him.

The member did make a comment on the issue of amalgamation and merger and mentioned that the act did not deal with that. I would refer him to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, section 138, specifically subsection 138(2). It says, "The registrar shall submit the agreement or offer for the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." So the present legislation already envisages a final concurrence by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to any amalgamation or merger.

I appreciate there was a select committee some few years ago, and the member will appreciate that the development of law in the process we are all involved with here is sometimes a process that takes time in order to fully evaluate the needs. It is our view that economic circumstances and business practices which appear to be changing in recent times do merit the introduction of this legislation at this time and do merit a review of the issue.

I can only thank members once again for their support for the legislation. I wish everyone a very pleasant Christmastime and I thank the member for St. Catharines for the small tap. Thank you very much.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) expected? I am looking for some guidance, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding in discussions just a few moments ago with the government House leader, if that is the Attorney General's bill you are talking about, that he did not propose to bring it forward this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If it is the desire of the members opposite not to have this bill --

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should not say not to have it. If all members were aware of the circumstances, one or two might like to say a word or two about the law society but this is a very modest amendment, really, to confirm what convocation has done, to allow a very distinguished deputy minister of this government to assume other responsibilities. I would be delighted, if we could do it in two minutes, to take carriage of the bill, if that does not upset the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) or the expert on the law society from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond on a point of order: I am a modest expert on the law society and we are appointing a very respectable gentlemen to a new position, but I do not know where else we can talk about the law society. Certainly, since we are so quick to respond to the Premier's blandishments the last few days, I would be the last to stand in the way of something the Attorney General thinks is so important that he is not in the House to conduct it himself.

6:10 p.m.

I have been told by the government House leader the appointment of Rendall Dick is not based on this bill, but if there is some special reason why it should go forward without any other notice I would be the last to stand in its way. There will no doubt be other occasions when the Premier will bring it forward in this House for us to have a far-ranging discussion about the future of the law society and its under secretary.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, we had reached agreement earlier this afternoon about bills that would be called, and when I encountered the House leader just a few moments ago he had determined it would not proceed. We have no objection to the bill proceeding. I checked with the critic for the New Democratic Party and he has indicated his willingness to see it go through. We have no objection to it.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 199, an Act to amend the Law Society Act.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I appreciate that. I would just very briefly explain that Mr. Dick has been approached and has accepted an appointment from the Law Society of Upper Canada to become the under secretary or whatever it is --

Mr. Nixon: Under treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, a lesser priest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Under treasurer, I am sorry. Apparently, according to the rules of convocation, it is necessary to have this very modest amendment, and I move second reading of Bill 199. In moving second reading I only have one observation to make. I have known a lot of public servants in my time here at Queen's Park, and there are very few as able or as dedicated as Mr. Dick. While I was disappointed when he accepted this appointment, quite honestly -- when I say disappointed, I will miss him -- speaking for the government, and I have a sense for many members opposite who have dealt with him over a number of years, I wish him well in his new endeavours as I move second reading of Bill 199.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would concur in the comments the Premier has made with respect to the placing of this bill before the House at this time. In the move by Rendall Dick to a new position as under treasurer of the law society, we have a particularly skilled and knowledgeable public servant taking on a very serious and demanding task. During the few moments we had to discuss this theme in the estimates of the Attorney General, the contribution I made to that discussion was simply to read a series of headlines, a variety of troubling articles that have been written about the whole operation of lawyers and others within the justice system.

We have seen a large increase in thefts from trust accounts. We have seen more and more disbarments and problems as underemployed lawyers get into mischief. We are uncertain in this society how many lawyers are enough, and, indeed, the membership of the law society has doubled in the past few years. We have seen insurance costs escalating as many of these defalcations lead to a falling back on the payments that have to be made to people who have been defrauded.

The whole structure of the law society, the election and duties of the benchers, is going to be under question in the next several years. Certainly Mr. Dick, as a former Deputy Treasurer of this province, and as a former and present Deputy Attorney General, will bring particular skills as he takes on dealing with some very thorny problems that are going to face those in the legal profession and all of us in the Legislature. Perhaps there will be an opportunity when the Courts of Justice Act comes before us to talk about the Law Society of Upper Canada and its future and prospects.

Certainly we on this side of the House wish Rendall Dick well as he takes on these duties, and I hope he does not find the challenge overwhelming. We support the bill and I wish Mr. Dick well on his appointment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues are getting a little bit restless and perhaps want to participate -- not restless for the reason one might think, but restless because they may want to be urged to participate in the debate on this bill. I do not want to take too long on it. I have had occasion to express my regard for Rendall Dick and I need not repeat the admiration I have for him.

However, I can say to the law society through the medium of this assembly that it is none too soon that they had a chief executive officer to take charge of the affairs of that society, because the society is in disfavour in the eyes of many members of the public these days. They are indeed fortunate in having Rendall Dick to take over that position.

It is very seldom I agree twice in one day with the comments made by my friend from Kitchener, but if anybody wants to read the reasons that we need this kind of bill and this position, and why we are fortunate in having Rendall Dick, I refer them to the comments made by the member for Kitchener in the standing committee on administration of justice on Friday, December 17.

With that, sir, we support the bill.

Mr. Nixon: It would be entirely too incestuous if this bill were to carry with only those learned in the law participating. As a representative of someone who potentially might pay the bill associated with this, I feel I should join with my colleagues in both parties to say what a high regard I have personally for Rendall Dick. If we ever had a mandarin in the best sense around here, he fulfils the qualifications for that category.

Perhaps being a bit partisan, I saw him only once when as Deputy Treasurer he undertook to defend the government's policy in previously severing certain of its employees. It was the only time I felt his commitment to the government party was perhaps a little fuller than his commitment to the session of the church.

I personally feel that while the lawyers of this province, through their professional organization, need as much guidance as we can possibly give them, the problems we are experiencing through the chief law officer of the crown in guiding provincial judges is probably just as great.

I was personally disappointed that the talents of Rendall Dick are going to be lost to the government, or at least to the judicial emanation of the government. In my view he would have made a perfect chief judge of the provincial court because somebody should be rattling their slats a bit and putting them back to work. When I see them walking around with their striped pants showing under their robes -- we even pay the dry-cleaning costs for their robes -- I wonder if the chief judgeship is not a position where we need stronger leadership.

I particularly asked the government House leader whether this bill was necessary for the smooth transition of Mr. Dick from his present employment to his new employment and I was told it was not.

I understand we will be back here in two or three weeks and this would have been a good opportunity for members of the House who are concerned about the matter and concerned about certain policy matters pertaining to the Law Society of Upper Canada to express their views. I regret very much that the pressures that are exerted from all sides in this regard are such as to make it not a useful time to do so.

I would like to end my comments by saying I support the bill and the appointment it is intended to accomplish. I wish the compliments of the season to all, even those learned in the law.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In reply to those observations, I not only will make sure that Mr. Dick gets a copy of today's Hansard, but I will send it to the treasurer of the law society so he is fully aware of it.

Since this may be the last time I am on my feet before Christmas, may I extend in a very sincere way my best wishes to all members of the House and thank them by and large, with one or two exceptions, for the co-operation extended through the orderly passage of legislation and estimates.

I would say to the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk or whatever (Mr. Nixon), even though he is not a lawyer we appreciate his observations. I am sure he will have an opportunity at some time in the future to comment on the law society.

The only thing I would say to the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is that if he is advocating a restriction as to the people admitted to the bar, I will not support any such policy until after March 1983, when my personal interest will diminish somewhat. I hope he will have passed his bar ad, and I will not worry any more.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

6:20 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Aird: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 188, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 191, An Act to provide for the continuation of the Provisional County of Haliburton as the County of Haliburton;

Bill 196, An Act to amend the Provincial Court (Civil Division) Project Act;

Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes;

Bill 199, An Act to amend the Law Society Act;

Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act;

Bill 212, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act;

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

December 21, 1982