Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to you and to the members of the Legislature 29 grade 8 students from St. Ursula’s Separate School in Scarborough, along with their teacher, Miss Lackett. Would you join with me in welcoming them to the House?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to draw to your attention that we have some guests in the gallery as well, members of the Women’s Liberal Association from the city of Kingston. I am sure you will be glad to welcome them.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, through you, to introduce to the House two very important people who are here with us today. This year the town of Petrolia celebrated its 100th anniversary as a town, and we have the centennial queen, Miss Heather Bourne in the lower gallery. Along with her, we have Miss Maxine Freer, who is the dairy princess for our area for 1973-1974. I would ask you all to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The Minister of the Environment.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the members of this House of the enactment of new and amended air pollution control regulations for the province to be effective immediately.

The Ministry of the Environment has established emission standards for 84 contaminants and criteria for desirable air quality for 23 substances, including lead.

I would like to emphasize that in all matters related to the health of Ontario residents we have worked in close co-operation with the Ministry of Health. This new standard for lead emission reduces by 50 per cent the amount of lead allowed to enter the air as suspended particulate. The members will recall that this standard was a major recommendation put forward in the recent report by the working group on lead.

We have provided a better method of enforcing our emission standards for all of the 84 contaminants listed in the new regulations. We can now determine the concentration of a contaminant at a specific point in a neighbourhood. The previous regulation offered emission standards for 20 substances, and many of these standards have been tightened. Also we have now established more definite criteria for air quality in the community, based on acceptable levels of various substances in the ambient air. These criteria aid us in detecting air offences and the probable source of the contaminant.

By establishing the more rigorous emission standard for lead we have strengthened our programme to control exposure of lead pollution to the people of this province. It calls for the best control equipment that technology can offer. The amendments are based on two years of ongoing study and testing. We had two major objectives: to provide a better method of enforcing the emission standards for any of the 84 contaminants now covered by the regulation, and to offer clearer criteria for air quality in the community. The tighter lead standard now gives us a more rigorous control of lead emissions to protect the public and, of course, our research and control programme is ongoing. We were able to establish these emission control standards because of our ongoing research based on the data which our ministry obtained directly, and from studies carried out throughout the world. When our research provides us with the evidence we require, standards for additional substances will be set.

In this regard, I am aware that the members of this House and the people of Ontario whom they represent are greatly concerned by the apparent threat to our environment posed by the use of vinyl chloride in some manufacturing processes. I wish to report that our ministry has been alert to this problem since last January when the vinyl chloride hazard first surfaced in the United States. At that time, the research scientists and technicians of our ministry undertook a study of vinyl chloride as it affects the ambient air. To date there have been no reported afflictions among workers engaged in the vinyl chloride industry in Canada. Companies within the vinyl chloride industry in Ontario are cooperating with the Environment Ontario officials in our research.

The findings of this research have resulted in the establishment of a criterion which limits the emission from vinyl chloride within safe limits. We have established 0.1 parts per million of vinyl chloride averaged over 24 hours as the guideline for desirable air quality in the community. Research carried out by my ministry in Ontario and the findings of studies in the United States established that there is a definite safety factor at this level. Comprehensive research into air contamination by vinyl chloride gas was initiated by my ministry’s air resources branch in January, 1974, soon after a possible link was suspected between vinyl chloride workers in the United States and a rare form of liver cancer called angiosarcoma.

The water resources branch of the Ministry of the Environment is investigating possible discharges of vinyl chloride in the waste from these plants. Environment Ontario officials are in communication with occupational health authorities in Sweden, USSR, Italy and Germany. The ministry monitors periodicals, papers and other sources of information to enable Environment Ontario to respond as quickly as possible to new and relevant information and discoveries.

In summary of my report to members, on vinyl chloride, I believe it is a fair statement to say that we have taken every precaution to ensure that the health of Ontario residents is not affected. Once again, my ministry and the Ontario Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) are working very closely together on the situation. We shall, of course, continue these efforts with the expectation that firm standards will be set in the near future.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the important contributions that women have made to the economic, social and cultural development of nations and to promote full equality between men and women, the United Nations has proclaimed 1975 as International Women’s Year.

In Ontario, we have undertaken specific measures to ensure that both men and wo me can participate fully in the life of our province. I believe that we have made significant progress, but it would be unrealistic to overlook the fact that there are still barriers for women in many fields of endeavour, and that, in fact, discriminatory attitudes still exist and must be overcome.

International Women’s Year will provide a focus for special efforts to assist women to achieve the goals they choose. Ontario has planned a series of events and special activities to create public awareness of the new roles and needs of the women of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline briefly a few of the programmes to be held during International Women’s Year.

On Feb. 18, the government of Ontario will convene a meeting of representatives of labour and management to focus attention on equal employment opportunities for women. As the members may know, two of every five women -- that is, 1.2 million women -- in Ontario are now employed outside the home. At the February meeting the government will ask for the support of both labour and management in programmes to assist women who seek expanded opportunities within the labour force. A follow-up meeting will be held late in 1975 to assess the achievements of the programme in accommodating the legitimate expectations of women.

Organizations engaged in professional, social and cultural activities will be encouraged to undertake their own special projects and events to mark this occasion.

The programme for next year will include provincial grants for amounts up to $1,000 for groups who plan special projects to celebrate International Women’s Year. And the government plans to honour a group of women who will be nominated by their own communities or organizations for outstanding achievement.

International Women’s Year will be promoted with a broad educational and information programme in an effort to reach those who are in a position to implement change as well as those who are affected by change.

During the year, legislation will be introduced by the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) on a broad range of subjects related to family law. The introduction of legislation follows a provincial tour by the Attorney General which generated public discussion on the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on family property law.

Property rights, the rights of children, support obligations and a number of other concerns dealing with one’s status within a family situation have been highlighted by discussions within women’s groups around the world, including a group of 500 women who came from across the province at the invitation of the Ontario Status of Women Council for a conference sponsored by the Secretariat for Social Development. New legislation in this area will be introduced during International Women’s Year to bolster the efforts of the Ontario government in achieving the greatest degree of social and legal equality possible in this area of law.

It is my hope that throughout 1975, men and women will work together toward the realization of the goal set by the United Nations -- equal opportunity for all.

FIRE AT POSTAL STATION A

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to make a short statement to the hon. members concerning the fire at postal station A and the effect that it may have on the Ontario government mail.

I have been advised by the postal authorities that all mail which had been sent by my ministry’s government mail service to Canada Post at terminal A was cleared for delivery prior to the outbreak of the fire. In addition, my ministry is making arrangements to ensure that Ontario government mail which is normally sent to this terminal will be processed and delivered in the speediest possible manner.

Apparently it is possible there could be water damage to a small portion of the incoming mail which had been held at terminal A for delivery to Queen’s Park, but such mail should not be otherwise affected. Members of the public, Mr. Speaker, who have reason to believe that their correspondence has not reached the Ontario government may wish to send duplicate copies to ensure delivery.

Mr. Speaker, we are still following up and checking up on this and advising some of the ministries who may have had mail affected by the fire perhaps to duplicate important correspondence so that there will be no delays.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

LAND ASSEMBLIES

Mr. R F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, if he is prepared to make a statement pertaining to the land assembly in Edwardsburgh township and also in the Haldimand area of the present region of Haldimand-Norfolk. Is he aware that there are substantial acreages being assembled apparently by private land dealers? Is the government of Ontario involved in this in any way or is this, in fact, a speculative assembly?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I know everything about these assemblies and I will be making a statement to the Legislature in the present session.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: We must therefore assume that the assemblies are being made on behalf of some government programme. Might we assume that the lands will be assembled to come under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Land Corp.? Is that what the minister has in mind?

Hon. Mr. White: One may assume anything one wants but I’m not going to make a statement today.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A supplementary: May I ask whether the proposed Hamilton-to-Nanticoke transportation corridor has any effect on the use to which these lands that are being assembled might be put?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on these two particular matters in the present session but I’m not prepared to do so today.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with your permission: We are concerned about the welfare of the people who own those properties.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don’t see how there can be a supplementary when there is no answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are they supposed to option it for $500 because the government is buying it?

Mr. Deans: There is a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How are the people supposed to reasonably discuss the corridor study, starting tonight, without knowledge of what that land assembly is about?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I will be dealing with this at the earliest opportunity but I can’t do it today.

Mr. Deans: They shouldn’t be doing other things, then.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No. The Leader of the Opposition. Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Housing, further to his statement yesterday, Mr. Speaker. In the material he tabled, is he aware that the director of land acquisitions for Ontario Housing, Mr. Procter, warned him of the problems of acquiring the property in that area using the procedure that he did use, indicating clearly that it would result in an escalation of cost, one that we might infer would be an unwarranted escalation since it resulted in the unconscionable profits that we have referred to?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I read the notes that I tabled very carefully. I’m well aware of Mr. Procter’s handwritten notes. We are also well aware that if we hadn’t assembled as we did we would have been paying, at this particular time, a much higher price than we did at that time. Therefore, we disregarded the fact that we --

Mr. Breithaupt: Not if the government had shopped around.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister said that land prices were coming down.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- have handwritten notes saying it was going to be a difficult assembly.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): “Abnormally” difficult.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We went ahead and assembled the land, in my opinion, as I said yesterday, at a very reasonable cost to the people of Ontario, and we can’t go ahead on the basis of expropriation.

Mr. Breithaupt: What’s a million?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’ve explained that before.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why? The minister certainly has not.

A supplementary: Whose judgement then overrode the director of land acquisitions who obviously felt, as part of his responsibility, he had to warn his superiors about this. Was it the judgement of the minister or the chairman of the board of the Ontario Housing Corp. that would lead to disregarding this advice which led to the payment of that $1 million speculative profit on 600 acres?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s fair to say that any minister, at some time or other, doesn’t go along with the recommendations of his staff.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So it was the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Ontario Housing Corp. board made a decision, the government made a decision and we stick by that decision as being a good decision.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why?

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of an offer was made to Freedman on Dec. 12 when one of the agents approached him for the first time, apparently, and how many acres were offered, and why he was then given a month in which he was allowed to assemble several parcels of land at as much as $2,000 or $2,500 lower than the government eventually paid for these lands?

Mr. Breithaupt: It was an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview was here yesterday; he was here last week. I went all through this yesterday.

Mr. Singer: I’m taking it out of the statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I told the member that the one parcel that was offered was for a certain amount of money. That’s in the statement. He has a copy of the statement.

I gave him a copy of the statement.

Mr. Singer: The minister didn’t give me a thing. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was going to raise this earlier, but the minister focuses attention on it right now. He delivered his statement yesterday, he tabled 4 in. of supporting material, copies were made available to the press and not a single copy came to the opposition. So he didn’t give us a single thing yesterday.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not even his statement.

Mr. Breithaupt: We had to get it from the clerk.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We had to get it from the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions? Is the minister still answering?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, just so that we clarify that point, I happened to notice that the member for Downsview picked up all the material that I tabled and looked through it very carefully, I thought; I hope he did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Yes, well, answer the question then; answer the question.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Try again.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, back to the point of order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is nothing out of order in the proceedings. It is a question and answer period and there is nothing out of order that I can see, so there is no point of order.

Mr. J. A. Belanger (Prescott and Russell): Grandstanding again.

Mr. Lewis: And he wants it wrapped in a ribbon. Do that next time.

Mr. Singer: All right, my point of order is this: I think it is degrading to the House that the minister should make available to the press supporting documents and copies of his statement about a matter that has been discussed in this Legislature for about 10 days and not make copies available to members of the opposition. The only way that members of the opposition can get it is to take what has been tabled here, make individual copies and then happen to snaffle a copy of the statement that was given to the press. I suggest that the ministry is holding this Legislature in extreme contempt.

Mr. Lewis: The member snaffled it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Contempt, that’s right

Mr. Singer: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get an answer to my question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister Without Portfolio): He really doesn’t want the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. The original question had to do with the warning by one Mr. Procter. The supplementary question got a little far away.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It had to do with his statement yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Singer: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t get an answer to my question yet.

Mr. Lewis: What does the Speaker think of snaffling?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: All right May I ask a supplementary to his answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Apparently the minister has not completed his answer yet.

Mr. Singer: The minister hasn’t completed it. Would he complete it please?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’d be happy to, if the member would sit down for a minute.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, all I wanted to point out to the hon. member was this, that I knew he picked up the material; he sent me a note and I agreed to give him all the information, tied with a ribbon, and make sure it was given to him. If he hasn’t got it now, I’ll make sure he gets it.

Mr. Singer: Twenty-two hours late.

Hon. M. Handleman: We won’t use the federal postal service. He will get it.

Mr. Singer: That minister was no hell as a Minister of Housing either.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister without Portfolio is feeling better.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If I remember correctly, some moments ago, Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the transaction of a particular parcel of land. That was in the statement. We were offered one piece of property at a certain price. We said that was not acceptable, because we were assembling a large acreage of land. At the same time, Bonnydon came back to us and said they would reconsider. That is in the statement. All the member has to do is read the statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, they picked up more land after the minister’s first offer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Bonnydon assembled a parcel of 11 properties. That’s in the statement. We also said that we did not accept one of the parcels because of the title not being proper.

Mr. Singer: That is not true either.

Hon. Mr. mime: I don’t know about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, withdraw. Mr. Speaker, order.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have never deliberately misled this House and I don’t want the member to suggest I have.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order about the question, I didn’t say the minister is deliberately misleading the House. I said the statement he made was not true. I didn’t say he deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: For the minister’s information there was nothing wrong with the title. The reason the deal didn’t close was that the man Mickelev thought he had been had and nobody can find him to serve writs on him.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: That’s what’s wrong with that deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may, could the minister explain why the Freedman-associated companies were given a period of a month in which they were able to acquire many properties, when they knew the price the government was going to pay for them, and thereby increase their profit to perhaps as much as $2 million at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how many times we want to go around this circle, but we can go just as many times as the member for Downsview wants to.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Well, give us an answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not going to say that we gave information to Freedman at any time. I’m saying we negotiated in good faith with all the parties involved in the transaction --

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, Alice in Wonderland --

Mr. Singer: The minister negotiated with them in December for 200 acres -- and a month later they sold him 1,250 acres at vastly inflated prices.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- with all the parties involved in the transaction --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and the transaction stands today as being a very good public piece of property for development in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

ARBITRATION AWARD FOR WORKERS IN DUTTON CONVALESCENT HOME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has been informed of an award made under the terms of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act in the contractual dispute between the Bobier Convalescent Home in Dutton and the union representing the workers? The award which was made by Judge Harold Lang, retired, was $2.16 an hour. Does the hospital disputes law permit the judge to make an award less than the minimum wage in this province?

An hon. member: Shame.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that award. I do not think that it does permit that; I think the hospitals still have to comply with the minimum wage. I am saying I think that’s the case; I would hope it was the case.

An hon. member: Let’s hope so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If the minister would look into the matter specifically would he make us aware of what we assume would be a fact, that the enactments of this House would take precedence over the decision of the judge in this case, and that those people are being paid at least the minimum wage?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to investigate it. I don’t know the facts of the case or how far back it goes; it may go back to a period prior to the new minimum wage. How far back does it go?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The award was made on Nov. 13, 1974.

Mr. Roy: A week.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know what the fringe benefits are, Mr. Speaker, but I will be pleased to get that information for the House.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I am almost tempted to say, “Why doesn’t the minister know?” because this is a classic award. But that apart, the minister understands that the minimum wage must apply and that in fact the workers are being paid at the $2.25 level. The question is, who are these judges that the minister is appointing under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act who are capable of rendering a decision which locks workers for two years into a wage level below our minimum wage, in theory if not in practice, and denies them an effective increase until the end of 1975? Where does the minister find these people?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we have some very excellent people doing this work, very sincere people --

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, they are quite extraordinary. That is what is destroying the hospital workers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If the member is suggesting that I should have a copy of this award at my fingertips, I don’t have that, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned. I think there must be other facts involved of which the members opposite possibly are not aware --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, we would like the report.

Hon. Mr. Macbeth: -- but, as I said, I will try to get that information.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

The member for Scarborough West, then, with his questions.

REPORT ON ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. Lewis: Yes, if I could, I have a question of the Premier; and maybe it’s a question asking him to respond in a personal way, with a personal view. Does the Premier believe that there should be an overall ceiling to campaign expenditures at the riding level and at the provincial level by individual political parties in Ontario?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, to answer that question properly, I think one has to look at the total report and to recognize the practical implications and the experience of other jurisdictions that have endeavoured to establish a limitation, such as the problems of enforceability and the fact that it’s not always adhered to.

I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that my prime concern has been and still is with the aspect of disclosure, so that the public is totally aware of those people who contribute to the various political parties.

Until I have thoroughly read the report and discussed it with my colleagues, both in cabinet and caucus -- because I want the legislation to reflect that which is practical -- and certainly with the assistance of the commission, which I think is a very comprehensive approach to it, Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to indulge in any, shall we say, debate or discussion on one or two aspects of the report. I think it has to be considered in its entirety.

Mr. Cassidy: Pretty important aspect, you know.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Surely the Premier doesn’t consider a debate on one or two aspects of the report? Surely he considers it fundamental to political financing of any kind in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier saying -- see how quickly I came to it? -- is he saying that he will use the argument of applicability, appropriateness or enforceability -- all the rationalizations that Mr. Camp and Mr. Fisher gave -- as an excuse to prevent him from giving us an overall ceiling, since in fact it has worked in other jurisdictions effectively, the United Kingdom being the obvious one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is some debate about that I would only say to the hon. member that it may be that Messrs. Camp and Fisher are right. With great respect, while I know the hon. member has some views on the subject, I know also how his particular party functions as it relates to election finance, how they handle campaigns, and the way that they assist in their campaign structure without necessarily money being on the line by way of payment.

Mr. Lewis: It can all be calculated.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I fully appreciate how they have done this over the years and I recognize that the member would like to see this particular system continued and promoted.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that you will not get me to be taking the report today, item by item. I just don’t intend to do it.

Mr. Lewis: No, because he won’t have a ceiling. He wants the money for the big blue machine.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Premier puts it on a political basis, it appears that he is waffling on this. Would he not accept the fact that his waffling on this, following the lead of the chairman of the commission and Mr. Fisher, is simply an attempt to keep the monetary advantages that were so much on his side back in 1971 when, it is rumoured, he spent $5 million, including $50,000 from Fidinam? How can he possibly offer that as an alternative?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that his observation or guess as to how much the Conservative Party spent in 1971 is just about as accurate as any other assessment of an economic nature he has made since I have been in the House. Like so many, it is totally wrong.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Make it public.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us. Disclose it.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Disclose it so we don’t have to guess.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member it is fine for him to talk about election finance reforms, when I didn’t hear a word being said by his colleagues prior to July 8 as it related to the federal Liberal Party, the amounts of money they were spending, the law under which they were operating, and the fact that they probably outspent the Tories two to one during the federal election campaign. I didn’t hear a word from them as to whether that was proper or not.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West. As this is developing into a debate, this will be the last supplementary.

Mr. R F. Nixon: There is a federal limit.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: If the Premier feels that the Camp commission --

Hon. Mr. Davis: These people are trying to collect money --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, it is Broadbent who is worried about that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Deans: Do you know you threw a man out last week for less than that?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it’s we who are collecting money using the federal Act -- you know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is nothing innocent about that.

Mr. Lewis: No, they are innocent virgins; we are collecting the money.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t agree with that assessment.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the most risqué the Premier has been in the 11 years I have been here.

Since the Premier feels so strongly about the integrity of the Camp commission proposals and about the apparent need for disclosure, we challenge him now to make the Tory expenditures in 1971 public as a basis of setting the limitations for 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the suggestion being made. I would only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that since the figure used by the Leader of the Opposition, as I read it, I think, in this morning’s press, was a $5 million figure, and I have read press reports over the years, I can only say that like so many of the Leader of the Opposition’s observations on mathematical things -- and we’ve had so many of them here in this House -- it is substantially wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s the right figure?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It began as a very innocent question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.

MARKUPS IN FOOD PRICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and I may have missed it when I was away in one question period -- did he table the Ontario Food Council’s monitoring of price differentials from farm gate to checkout counter, which he indicated he had available and would table?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t. I would correct my friend. What I offered to table was the difference in the markup between the price the wholesalers sell at to the chain stores and what they sell at -- that’s the markup that the chain stores are using in the price of a side of beef. That is what I offered to table and I haven’t got the up-to-date figures on them as yet.

FUNDING OF OHAP

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing if I am right, in looking at Ontario finances for Oct. 31, 1974, that the allocation projected for OHAP has been reduced from $15 million to $8 million? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.

Mr. Lewis: Why does it show that way in the figures?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we’ve had supplementary -- well, not supplementary estimates -- we have added funds to what is shown in the report. This was brought out in my estimates, by the way. We have now a considerably larger amount. I can’t give him the exact amount today but I will provide it for the leader of the NDP.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Under the OHAP programme, is the minister still doing business with the developers in --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That doesn’t appear to be supplementary. The original question had to do with the reduction in spending from $15 million to $8 million.

Mr. Sargent: I’m talking about the OHAP programme.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but that was not the question. It was a reduction in spending.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: He may place a new question in turn, I would point out to the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the OHAP programme.

Mr. Speaker: That is not the subject of the question. You may place your question in a moment.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Whatever the minister may have in mind over the coming five months, are the Treasurer’s figures not correct in reflecting that the spending under the housing action programme has been only about half what was projected during the first seven months of this fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre --

An hon. member: And the Islands.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- was involved in a considerable discussion in this particular matter in the estimates. At that time, we clearly indicated to the member and to those present that OHAP is a successful programme and that it has been supplemented with additional funds out of the $100 million which was announced by myself as extra funding for housing throughout Ontario and throughout our different policies and programmes. The actual amount, as I said before, I’ll give to the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HIGHWAY 17 BILINGUAL ROAD SIGNS

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Can the minister gather his secretariat together to see how they might respond to the problem of the communities that lie on Highway 17, around which the Highway 417 bypass now travels, particularly to provide for them bilingual road signs on 417 as bilingual indications of services that would be available on 17, and perhaps some specific economic supports because of the collapse of the small businesses, restaurants and other commercial undertakings in those communities necessary with the change in bypass?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that matter.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce with his question.

SALTFLEET DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that on page 5193, Nov. 13, 1974, of Hansard, he agreed that the appraised value of the Saltfleet development was $3 million, as outlined by the appraisers here, will the minister please produce the notation appended to the Saltfleet file by a Mr. Murchison, director of land acquisition HOME programme? At that time, Jon-Enco was paid $6 million by this agreement here, of which we have the original copy. Would the minister please then produce to me the notation attached to this Saltfleet file, as he said he would?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to put words in my mouth which I don’t really accept.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t have to. Read Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I said was that I would table all of the relevant information, which I did. If he will read what I tabled he should be able to understand exactly what did transpire. He should be able to. I’m not tabling anything further than what I have already. It’s exactly as it was and exactly as it is going to be.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that $3 million was paid more than the appraisal people said should be paid, why won’t he produce the file? We have the original document here, and we know what is on the appended letter, but he won’t produce the file. Why won’t he?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it will make a bit of difference to the hon. member what I produce.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I don’t care. I want to see the file.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I produced all the information necessary for the members of this House. The members of the House, in general, understand what I tabled.

Mr. Singer: Oh no, he hasn’t.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the member doesn’t understand it’s not my fault.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is misleading the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: He agreed, in Hansard, with exactly what I have said here. And he is now denying he said that.

Mr. Speaker: The member is debating this question and he is out of order. Any question from the New Democratic Party?

Mr. Sargent: The minister is out of order too.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF CALIFORNIA GRAPES

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker: Even if the government continues to refuse to stop purchasing California grapes for government food outlets, and by so doing is supporting the United States Teamsters’ Union in the dispute --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: -- will he at least ensure that the chef in the members’ dining room does not continue to misinform diners, as he did today, that the unmistakably California-grown red Emperor grapes were, first, grown in Spain and then, when challenged, grown in Ontario?

Ms. Lewis: If they were grown in Ontario, that would he quite a feat.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They were grown in the Northwest Territories.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular bunch of grapes that the hon. member is referring to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In fact, I am not very familiar with grapes, period.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Not in that form.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility for the purchase of the grapes is not with my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing.

Would the minister give the House the information pertaining to a number of transactions by Ontario Housing in the Ottawa area, more specifically a purchase of 1.3 acres on Donald St. by Thomas Assaly Corp. Ltd., purchased in July for $105,000 and then sold in March, eight months later, for $273,000 to Ontario Housing? Would the minister advise why a similar 1.3 acres in Vanier, called the Green Valley Lumber on Montreal Rd., was then purchased for half a million dollars, which is approximately twice the price the city of Vanier is paying for land in that area?

Mr. Breithaupt: Here we go again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member being, I hope, somewhat knowledgeable about the escalation of prices in the Ottawa area --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- should realize that, as we said before, one has to pay market value at the time of the transaction.

Mr. Cassidy: Especially when it’s a Tory developer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Surely as a solicitor who has been, I think, well informed in the matter of what market value is, the member can understand that from today till next year there is going to be a difference in the price; or today till next month.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s double.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): It’s 100 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s the same method we have been discussing in the last few days. There is nothing different. I am not going to go into each transaction OHC has made in the last 10 years.

Mr. Singer: Oh, no!

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, yes, one at a time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the member thinks that he is going to go into individual transactions, he is wasting a lot of time in the House.

Mr. Singer: Oh!

Mr. Breithaupt: That is why we are here.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The minister doesn’t want to tell us the facts.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I am saying to him is that the prices paid --

Mr. Lewis: The minister will rue those words; he will chew those words; he will swallow those words.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- are prices which were relevant at that rime. And if the member can’t understand the difference between market value and what he thinks was the price, it’s too bad.

An hon. member: The biggest pork barrel --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The minister is spending public funds.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister can’t understand what speculation is all about.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the minister replied that he was paying what he called market value. Could he explain, first of all, the difference between that answer today and what he was talking about last week, about land residual value? Secondly, why wouldn’t he table this information? Don’t the members of the Legislature have a right to know what the acceptance price that he gave to the vendor was based on?

An hon. member: Not any more.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is spending public money.

An hon. member: Right you are.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing whatsoever to hide in the transaction.

Mr. Roy: Produce it then.

Mr. Singer: Produce it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let’s try to understand the basic principle of what goes on today --

Mr. Good: For crying out loud.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- what went on before and what is going on in the future. If the member wants to have every transaction discussed in this House --

Mr. Good: You find out that speculators are doing very well.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I think he is really not a very good member for his area, because if he does that he is wasting an awful lot of time. We are talking about the difference between the price of land three months before, six months before, and what it was bought for; that’s the principle we are talking about. We have to have OHC paying prices which are acceptable at that time to the owner.

Mr. Roy: Let the minister table the information.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On those two specific cases, I have no knowledge as to what they are. I’ll table that, but I am telling the member now, I am not going to go into individual details of every transaction of OHC.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are thousands of them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because it’s ridiculous to think I should be.

Mr. Breithaupt: He might; he might.

Mr. Roy: We will see about that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Singer: Could I now thank the minister for sending to me the material that he tabled 25 hours ago?

An hon. member: No ribbon, though. No ribbon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, the member for High Park.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I have said the last supplementary was the final one. The member for High Park.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry. This party had no supplementaries on that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow you one.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much. In view of the political connections of Mr. Assaly in particular, will the minister table the appraisals that were made on the two sites in question in Ottawa prior to the purchase by OHC?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of who Mr. Assaly is, or anyone else involved in those transactions.

Mr. Cassidy: He is a good Tory, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would expect there are some darn good Tories and the members opposite are going to find out when they run the next time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I will do, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Cassidy: Like the ones who supported Pierre Benoit?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- is what I said before, I will table the relevant information to the transaction --

Mr. Sargent: What does the minister call relevant?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If that does not satisfy the hon. member that is too bad, but I will table all the relevant information.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

TRAFFIC TICKETS

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker. After due reflection is the minister now prepared to supply the House with a list of the people his department has fixed tickets for this year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, due to the hon. member talking beside me, I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. Shulman: I asked if the minister had time to decide whether he is willing to supply us with a list of the persons for whom his department of protocol has fixed tickets this year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to supply any list of names of people for whom the director of protocol has, so-called, fixed tickets. Mr. Speaker, under the --

Mr. Foulds: The fixed tickets regulations?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Ticket regulation Act?

Mr. Cassidy: Under “F” not “T.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, under section 43 of the Vienna convention --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought the minister only had meetings up in Muskoka.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am sure we all want to hear the rest of this answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister just has to be kidding, come on!

Mr. Deans: Don’t do this!

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member wants to observe the Geneva convention, doesn’t he?

Mr. Deans: The convention of the Tory party.

An hon. member: And we have no time for television!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. members aren’t interested in my answer --

An hon. member: Oh, we are!

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- but as I stated, under section 43 of the Vienna convention of the consular corps around the world, certain --

Mr. Lewis: It was decided they would fix each other’s tickets.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- certain immunities are, I understand, granted to consular representatives from other countries. In the case here, the consulates --

Mr. Singer: When did Ontario sign that convention?

An hon. member: It’s done federally.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the consulates come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of --

Mr. Stokes: That was the Old Vienna convention.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- External Affairs of the federal --

Mr. Singer: That was Emperor Frederick the first?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously the members don’t want to know the answer.

Mr. Shulman: I want to know the answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is their question period they are using up. I know the hon. member has been dying to ask this question for weeks now.

Mr. Deans: We have been dying to hear the answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is obviously ready with the answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But in any case --

Mr. Sargent: Haven’t we heard this speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the jurisdiction of this matter comes under the Minister of External Affairs in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: This government doesn’t have one of those?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It has been customary for members of the consular corps who receive tickets for minor violations such as parking offences, provided they are for cars with the CCA licence number, which is the licence number allotted to the --

An hon. member: Federal Liberal ministers fix tickets.

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- consular corps, that these members of the consular corps forward such summonses as they might receive to the director of protocol in my ministry. If it is a minor offence such as a parking ticket, these summonses are forwarded to the appropriate officer in the city of Toronto police, if it happens to be in Toronto, and the section of the Vienna convention is quoted and don’t ask me how, but the matter is looked after.

Mr. Deans: Sounds like making contributions to the party, “Don’t ask me how.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the summons is for a moving infraction, then the summons is forwarded to the Minister of External Affairs in Ottawa and it is dealt with at that level.

Mr. Reid: Then they ask the minister what happened.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the information I have, is that there were some 55 parking violation notices dealt with in 1973 and 1974 to date, and some 20 other summonses, I believe, were forwarded to External Affairs in Ottawa for their use. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to divulge the list of names of the consular corps representatives who incurred these parking tickets. I am advised by the office of the Minister for External Affairs in Ottawa that this would not be appropriate to do. And on that advice --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- I feel that I should not reveal the list of names. I can’t say this from my own knowledge, but I understand such a list was requested from the minister in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and that this was not forthcoming.

Mr. Breithaupt: That sounds like collusion.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary, yes.

Mr. Shulman: I’ll work in a dual supplementary: Inasmuch as there’s nothing in the Vienna convention about secrecy, merely courtesy, can the minister explain why he has added a new article of protocol to the Vienna convention referring to secrecy?

Secondly, inasmuch as there are at least two tickets that I am aware of that were fixed by his ministry that were not members of a consular staff nor for a consular car, will he reconsider supplying this list?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know anything about anything in the Vienna convention --

Mr. Foulds: The minister doesn’t know anything about anything.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- relating to any secrecy. But this is a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of External Affairs.

Mr. Deans: The minister fixed the tickets.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is on his advice that it would not be appropriate to table such a list of names. I am taking that advice.

For the second part of the hon. member’s question, I am assured by my staff that no ticket has been fixed for anyone who is not a member of the consular corps. All I can give the member is that assurance.

Mr. Shulman: If I give the minister the name of one, will he supply the list?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. Shulman: Just a minute. If I give the minister the name of one, will he supply the list?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the hon. member has a name and wants to give it to me, I would be glad to investigate it. But so far he is making --

Mr. Shulman: Well, will he supply the list entirely?

Mr. Turner: Write to Ottawa.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware that the Lake Erie commercial fish harvest has dwindled to five boxes per day, compared to the year 1973 in which the harvest had reached 500 to 600 boxes a day? In view of this drastic decrease in the fish harvest, would the minister consider allowing the commercial fishermen in Lake Erie and Erieau to postpone their principal and interest payments on their ODC loans, which they were forced to apply for when fishing in Lake Erie was banned by mercury contamination?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, directly related to the question of Lake Erie and the fishermen, first of all let me clear up one point. No one was forced to make application for an ODC loan. It was of their own accord. If they wished to secure financing by the development corporation, we extended it to them. We have over the last number of years, been able to sit down with those fishermen and discuss with them their payment programme and their plans. We are prepared, even at this date, to review it further if there are some economic disadvantages to them at this point.

Mr. Singer: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for Port Arthur.

POLARIS STEEL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is it not usual practice for his ministry to send a letter of warning and subsequently cancel the incorporation of companies that have not filed an annual return for at least three years? Why has he not done so in the case of Polaris Steel, which has not filed a return since 1968?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, under the Act, I believe we send out notices, usually by ordinary mail, referring to the default. If that does not elicit a response, then in due course a registered letter is sent out to the directors, as of record, and to the company itself.

Insofar as the particular company that the member refers to is concerned, I don’t know specifically why notices were not sent out. It may well have ended up in receivership or bankruptcy. It may be inadvertence on the part of my staff, I don’t know. If the member will give me the name of it again, I’ll inquire, and before the House rises tonight I will tell him what the situation is. I didn’t catch the name.

Mr. Foulds: The name is Polaris Steel.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister further aware, while he is making his investigations, that this firm and at least one of its principals, John H. McCormick of Burlington, have subsequently received a number of government contracts on which debts are still outstanding? Is it within his purview to investigate that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, sir, my responsibility is under the Corporations Information Act which says that a company shall, within 30 days of its anniversary of incorporation, file an annual return in the form prescribed by the ministry. That return indicates who the corporate officers are, the head office of the place of business, the share structure and so on. No financial information is required insofar as our return is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is there any truth in the rumour that the minister’s heritage legislation is being revamped and may not be introduced this session?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I must say rumours start very quickly. It will not be introduced for a few days, perhaps a little longer. There are some adjustments that we have to make to it.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister undertaking to introduce it in this session because the former member for Carleton East is very much interested in that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it the minister’s intention to have a substantial increase in the resources development heritage foundation when the legislation is introduced?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am sorry, would the hon. member repeat the question?

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister intend to provide a lot more money for heritage acquisitions in the province if the bill is passed?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Of course, that will depend on what transpires in the budget for next year. I think the amount in the current budget is a round sum of $1 million.

Mr. Speaker: Any question from the New Democratic Party? If not, the member for Carleton East.

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, I think we need some answers from the minister responsible for housing with respect to transactions.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking a question?

Mr. P. Taylor: I refer to the earlier mention of the transaction regarding property on Donald St. This property was purchased in July, 1972, by the Thomas Assaly Corp. for $105,000 and was sold to the Ontario Housing Corp. eight months later for $273,600. That, by my calculation, is an increase of something like 155 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Place your question.

Mr. P. Taylor: My question is, in a year when housing costs in Ottawa rose by an average of 21 per cent, how can the minister answer for this kind of increase in the Ottawa area?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A good question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, probably the real question is whether the hon. member has been listening or not since he has been here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why should he start now? Why start now? He never listened before.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a nice start. That is a great start.

Mr. Roy: That is a good answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time is about up.

Mr. Lewis: For the opposition the minister is the best Minister of Housing we have had. I want him to know that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Carleton East is only going to be here for a short time so why doesn’t he listen to what I have been saying?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is the overnight guest. Does he want to try for another by-election? A royal commission will do him in.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He has just repeated what his colleague was talking about.

An hon. member: Little Sir Echo.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If he doesn’t listen to me why doesn’t he listen to his colleague? It was the same question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister answer that question if he can?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will get the answer for him.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Lewis: If the Premier wants to move him, the minister should fight for his job. He should hold on to his housing portfolio and not let it go.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let the member fight for his own job.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to introduce to the Legislature the ladies representing the Bowen Rd. Women’s Institute of Fort Erie, Ont., with their president, Mrs. Bev Jewson.

I also want to inform the hon. members that it is a rather special day for one of the members of the institute, Mrs. Betty Elsworth, whose son Robert Elsworth is now serving as a page boy in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves that the annual report and financial statement of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973, be referred to the standing resources development committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There’s a great deal of noise in the wings. Will you please control it?

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, before we come to the orders of the day, I would like to table answers to two questions, 7 and 24, on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

House in committee on Bill 139, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

JUDICATURE ACT

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, I want to give some indication that I have a couple of amendments to section 3. Perhaps when we get to that section it would be time enough for me to introduce the amendments and also some of the reasons for them. I have no comments with respect to section 1 or section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on section 1? Does section 2 carry?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps it would be in order for me to proceed; I have two amendments.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Do you have copies?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Hopefully.

Mr. Singer: You can send them around tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I have copies now.

Mr. Singer: Oh thank you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The page boys are in the process of delivering them.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves that subsection (2) of section 68a as contained in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “or make or attempt to make a graphic portrait or sketch” in the third and fourth lines of clause (a); and by striking out “record, portrait or sketch,” in the second and third lines of clause (b); and inserting in lieu thereof, “or record;” and further that subsection (3) of the said section 68a be amended by striking out “record, portrait or sketch” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof, “or record.”

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): God bless you.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister what consultation he has had with representatives of the various news media, particularly representatives of the electronic media about this particular bill? And what happened to the minister’s assurance that he would give time in order to consult with the various media before the bill came back for committee stage in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I think in all fairness, the hon. member knows I gave no such undertaking at all. I’m quite satisfied, on the basis of some conversations I’ve had. On arriving in the House today, I received a letter from the president of the gallery. And the hon. member himself has spoken to me. I resent any implication from anyone that I’m pushing this bill.

I said after second reading on Thursday that I wanted to reread the debate. I found the afternoon a very interesting one with respect to the debate. I was impressed on the basis of the debate, and I’m now making some change. I’m making two changes. The only two points I felt were being made were with respect to the question of sketching -- and I’ve made my amendment on that point; and the other one was the difficulty in coming to some understanding as to what environs meant, and I want to introduce an amendment with respect to that.

I’ve indicated to anyone who has talked to me, including the president of the gallery, that I would like to talk about section 3 in the longer run, that is in the longer term implications of section 3 as it would be amended; but at this stage I was quite satisfied that what we were doing in this section was restoring the practice as it is understood at present. If there was to be some discussion with respect to the long-term implications of section 3, we would have the opportunity to do that perhaps over the next period of time.

I don’t like any suggestion, and I’m sure the hon. member didn’t intend to suggest, that I was attempting to push anything. I would like at least to have some indication from him that as a result of the debate on Thursday I am prepared to make these two amendments. In fact I was impressed by the debate.

The longer-term implications with respect to what we will allow in the courtroom as a change in the custom, I think will require more time. The urgency with respect to the bill relates to section 1, which deals with the expansion of the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to place his second amendment now, because I think the discussion on those two points probably could be handled more expeditiously in that way.

Mr. Cassidy: I would appreciate that too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Except that was on a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: If you have a second amendment.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I could make my second amendment, perhaps the committee would allow me an opportunity to summarize what has really prompted me to bring in these two amendments, and then perhaps we could have an exchange with respect to them both. Would that be in order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves that section 68a (2) (a) (iii), as contained in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “environs of the room or” in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof “precincts of the.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I would draw some attention to the fact the reference to “environs of the room or building” is changed to “precincts of the building” for greater certainty, which was the point and the concern that was being expressed on Thursday afternoon last.

Both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries define “precincts” as the space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building. This view was accepted by the English Court of Appeal in 1959 in the reported case of Walsh and Allweather, 1959-II, All England Law Reports, starting on page 588. So it seems to have some judicial understanding, which I think the member for Downsview was anxious that we clarify. Therefore, I would introduce both these amendments in response to the concerns that were expressed during the debate on second reading of this bill last Thursday.

I would like to simply remind the committee, if I might, that the twofold purpose of the amendment to the Judicature Act, particularly as it is reflected in section 3, was in the first place to preserve the physical dignity of the court process and secondly to preserve the personal dignity of the participants in a context that ensures an open trial process consistent with the public administration of justice.

I was very anxious in the debate as Hansard will show, that we emphasize the distinction between satisfying public curiosity in seeing justice done and maintaining the essential elements of a system which sees that justice is done. Over the years, the press has been the traditional and effective safeguard of the open and public nature of our system of justice. To insinuate into this process the visual and electronic media really is to go to this question as to how much further publicity is to be given against the general background of those two particular purposes.

I want to really emphasize -- and I hope I’ve captured the feeling of the members of the House who took part in the debate on Thursday afternoon -- that we have to appreciate the threefold nature of the limitations to which we are making reference: 1. There is no photographing in the courtroom. 2. There is no photographing of persons entering or leaving the proceeding in the courthouse. 3. There is no photographing of persons in the precincts of the courthouse who are on their way to or from the judicial proceedings.

Now it’s really in the delimitation of No. 3 -- and I can understand this -- that some of the concern has arisen and that is why I have changed the word “environs” to “precincts.” In order to run foul of prohibition No. 3, the photograph in the first place has to be taken of a person whom the photographer has reasonable grounds to believe is on his way to or from the proceeding. I suggest to you, although you may differ with me, that inadvertence would be a defence in that particular case; but secondly, the person so photographed must be within the precincts of the courthouse.

In other words, as far as subsection a(iii) is concerned, both elements must be present to be caught by the section. If the cameraman takes a general shot of the courthouse steps as part of a recorded TV interview, describing the proceedings, and inadvertently captures in the background persons going to and coming from judicial and other proceedings -- that is the sheriff’s office or the registry office -- he would not fall, in my opinion, within this particular section.

Likewise, if the photograph is taken of the participant away from the precincts of the courthouse, it’s not a prohibited act. What is attempted to be achieved by employing the “precincts” of the courthouse is really to be far more clear with respect to the definition as defined in those dictionaries to which I made reference and which appears to be accepted by the judicial process in that recorded judgement.

So I simply want to repeat, in response to the point of order raised by the member for Ottawa Centre, that I was attempting to illustrate by not proceeding until today that the debate on Thursday afternoon had some influence. I have indicated to the president of the gallery and to the representative of one TV corporation that I would be quite pleased, now that this is amended and the practice is now pretty well as it was, perhaps in the longer term to discuss some of the wider implications of the present practice.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the minister has seen fit to bring in these amendments, which substantially satisfy the objections that my colleagues and I have put forward. The question, however, remains as to the necessity for section 3 at all. It seems to me that these matters were adequately handled by the presiding provincial, county and supreme court judges in their courts.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I speak to that point now?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sorry, I should have really covered that point, because that was a reasonable point raised at the time as well.

You recall I traced some of the history behind this relating to a former request from one of the corporations to come into a court to actually take pictures of an adoption proceeding. The judge declined the request. The corporation appealed to the Ministry of the Attorney General asking on what authority the judge did this. I must share with you some opinion that the judge did not have the authority. On the basis of consultation with the judges, they felt that rather than this being a matter left up in the air, we should, to the best of our ability, regularize the present practice, which section 3 attempts to do.

I also did draw attention to the fact that this seems to have been the practice in the criminal justice area in England since 1925, and that section 3 as now amended pretty well reflects the wording of that section, which has been generally accepted practice.

Mr. Singer: When we were debating this earlier on second reading the minister did talk about the incident where a television network or station had asked the minister for permission. I think he added a piece today that they had asked the judge and been refused; I don’t think I heard of that phase before. I wouldn’t envy the minister’s position if he had given permission on the basis of refusal of a judge.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Here’s that autonomy again.

Mr. Singer: I can well imagine the judge asking the minister to come before him and the minister wondering why he was in contempt, because with all great respect to the minister’s mighty powers, I don’t think he can tell any judge or would tell any judge what he should do in his courtroom.

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t be too surprised.

Mr. Singer: I would think that the judge can determine, with respect to his courtroom, whether or not he is going to allow a television camera in or not; and any of the judges I know who are presently sitting wouldn’t allow it.

Now the minister made reference to an English case and to the English criminal practice, but he hasn’t made any reference to a comparable English statute.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Singer: Have you? Well you weren’t very clear on that. Could you tell me what the English statute says?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is the Criminal Justice Act of 1925 -- and I make particular reference to section 41 of that Act.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister read it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

“No person shall

“(a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph or, with a view to publication, make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch of any person being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness or a party to any proceeding before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

“(b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch, taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof; and if any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding £50.”

And then, for the purpose of this section, they go on to define what the expression “court” means, the expression “judge,” and:

“A photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the courtroom or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held.”

This is the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, 15 and 16, George V, chapter 86; which of course has been the law of England since 1925.

Mr. Singer: That’s very interesting. I wasn’t aware of the section in the English statutes. I know I have seen in the English newspapers very good sketches of what has gone on in the court. It may all have been done by memory or it may be that the section, insofar as sketches go, has fallen into disuse.

The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that I see no great necessity for the codification. If the minister feels this is a matter of urgent and vital principle, I don’t think it is doing any harm in its present phraseology, particularly since the amendments are there. We will support it as amended even though we see no great necessity for having it at all.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I am in a difficult position in getting up at this point, Mr. Chairman, because frankly I think the minister is acting in bad faith towards the media of the province in the way in which he is going ahead with the bill today, rather than giving more time in which they could make their opinions felt.

Today I have been in touch with a number of people from various news organizations and they have expressed varying degrees of concern -- in certain cases very severe concern -- about the bill. They would very much like to have the chance to sit down with the minister in order to talk about the code of conduct which he is bringing forward.

As the minister says, the amendments he is suggesting do vary the intent of the bill as it was originally put forward. Nevertheless they are done in a slap-dash, last-minute kind of fashion -- the question of penalties is not dealt with; the question of the limbo in which microphones and radio reporters are left is not dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I deal with that point about microphones now that you have raised it?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You realize, of course, that there is nothing in this section that deals with the radio man and his microphone. I think that your legal colleagues will point out to you that that is really not covered by this Act at all, and you might well want to take it that that would be covered by the new Right to Privacy Act with respect to recording -- in fact that goes to this whole question of the electronic devices used for recording. There is no prohibition by virtue of this statute with respect to that equipment to which you now make reference, but it may well be covered by another federal statute, and that federal statute would no doubt particularly exempt recording that goes on in courtrooms for purposes of the record.

I’m glad you raised that point I think you will find that point is not specifically dealt with by this statute.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, that is a ridiculous way to handle this particular question. Given this Act alone, without the federal Right to Privacy Act, the fact that the Act chooses to speak out on sketching and on photography and on TV and motion pictures being taken in or around a courtroom, and is silent about the use of tape recorders would suggest that therefore tape recorders are by omission permitted, except for that federal Act.

It seems to me, provincially, that we ought to be making our own rules about these things, if this is a code of conduct, rather than relying on a federal Act which was directed to another purpose and not to the tape recording of public proceedings; or proceedings that a few of us have thought were public proceedings.

As I say, I’m in a quandary, Mr. Chairman, because I have been consulting with my colleagues here about simply moving a motion to adjourn the debate on the committee stage of this bill for several days until the various news organizations can have an opportunity to sit down with the minister. I would hope that even now he would agree to that.

I know he has been in consultation over the lunch hour with some of these people who picked up the phone and have been in contact with the minister. It happens that although the bill was published on Nov. 14 -- or given first reading on Nov. 14 -- like another group that is affected by legislation around here, newspaper publishers and editors and the other people who are concerned with this kind of media operation, are going about their own affairs. They have things that are pressing; they have to get news broadcasts together, they have to do the things that are done. The reason the journalists aren’t here right now -- as the minister well known -- is that for half an hour or an hour after every question period they have immediate news to get out. That makes it very difficult for them to keep their work force in the gallery in order to cover this particular debate.

A group as well informed as the newspaper and media owners and operators and editors of the province are still at a real handicap, when something comes up that vitally affects their interests, because of time and the way in which this Legislature is used as a sausage machine. The minister has asked for time. He knows that I happen to be notifying the various media of what is happening. The reporters in the gallery send information off to their editors; some letters get through, despite the federal postal service and the fire at Terminal A.

People are concerned about it. The editor of the Hamilton Spectator is writing to the Provincial Secretary for Justice about the Judicature Act; a letter I presume the minister has not yet received.

The people at the CBC are drafting a reply. The people responsible for the news operation at the CBC in Ontario are drafting a reply to the minister, on the proposed amendments, which I presume the minister has not yet received. I don’t know whether they began to draft that last Friday or whether they began to draft it a week and a half ago; but nevertheless they haven’t been able to put their opinion in the minister’s hands, nor to sit down with him.

The people at CFTO are very concerned and very upset. They have managed to get on the telephone to the minister. Maybe they can even get somebody down here to talk to him briefly as he is coming into this place. But they don’t get a chance to sit down in a reasoned, calm and dispassionate kind of way; to sit down with the minister to work out the code of conduct, to work out whether what is now being proposed is reasonable or not; or if it is going to be done on a two-stage process, to get reasonable assurances about what the minister has in mind. None of that happens.

The editor of the Globe and Mail says -- well he doesn’t like to pick up the telephone to talk --

Mr. Chairman: I think the member is getting a bit repetitious.

Mr. Cassidy: No I am not, Mr. Chairman. This is all entirely relevant.

Mr. Chairman: You are not speaking to the amendments of this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I am speaking to the amendments.

Mr. Chairman: No, you are not.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, but I am.

Mr. Chairman: You are not on the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: The editor of the Globe and Mail, in reference to these amendments to the Judicature Act, says that it is not his paper’s custom to get in touch with ministers of the Crown by telephone or by letter; they speak on page 6 of the Globe and Mail. And so, therefore, they are considering whether or not to do that. I don’t believe they have done that up until now.

Mr. Singer: I think the minister should wait until it is considered -- it might take a month or two.

Mr. Cassidy: The people at the Toronto Star are concerned as well, about the rights of their news photographers and the general rights of the press in and around courtrooms, and they are still formulating a position.

And amid all of this, the minister insists on going ahead with the bill today because the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) tells him if he doesn’t do it today, he may not get to it until some future time and he may not get in.

Mr. Breithaupt: Aha! Now we know.

Mr. Cassidy: Or because he hasn’t got the wit to split the bill; put through the business about extra judges, which he considers important --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member is out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and leave this matter until it can be discussed in a reasonable kind of fashion, with reasonable people who run the media in the province. That is why I say the minister --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member is out of order. He is speaking about the timing of the bill, and when it is coming in. I have called for his comments on two amendments the minister presented. If the member wants to discuss the amendments, he is perfectly in order. If he wants to discuss when the bill should come into the House or when it shouldn’t come in, he is out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: All right. I’ll ask the minister about some comments about this and then we’ll get to talking about the possible amendments. I don’t want to disrupt this place. I have some respect for the minister. As a matter of fact, among Tories he is one of my favourites, and I don’t have many.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): All the member has been doing is disrupting.

Mr. Cassidy: I am really upset by the way the minister is pushing the press around with this.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could be of some help. I am not insensitive to the concern of the hon. member. He has been very reasonable.

He came to me, following the debate on Thursday and said he wanted to draw attention to the reaction of some media people. He was kind enough to show me copies of the letter he had received. Let me just share this with the House. I have talked to the president of the Ontario legislative assembly press gallery and I have talked to the news director of CFTO. I was satisfied, following those discussions that I was going to satisfy their immediate concerns about sketching and the definition of precincts. They were quite satisfied on that basis that the immediacy for a meeting was not necessary, if that was my intention. If it had not been my intention, they wanted the opportunity to plead the case to which the hon. member makes some reference. They then said that perhaps some time later when there is time we could discuss some other implications of longer range with respect to section 3, and I have agreed to that.

I don’t want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don’t want the hon. member to feel under any circumstances that I am pushing the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Well then stand it down for a week.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. Under the circumstances, and I’ll take the responsibility, I am quite satisfied that the immediate concern with respect to the people with whom I have talked and others is now looked after, because they are satisfied that the present practice is all that is being codified. As I said to the president of the Ontario press gallery who put a letter on my desk formally this afternoon and to whom I talked prior to coming into the House, we will sit down with the gallery to discuss some other aspects of this which are not as pressing now that the amendments that I have are introduced before the House.

The hon. member is entitled to make an issue of whatever he likes, that’s what this House is all about. I certainly would at least like to feel that under the circumstances the minister has responded in a positive way to the concerns that were expressed during the debate on principle last Thursday, and in fact is bringing in the amendments which the opposition seems to feel will be reasonable and that the member would share in the fact that we are debating this together today.

I am not attempting to flout anything. I am attempting to bring in these amendments in response to the opinions expressed on Thursday, which seem to be reinforced by the thoughts of those whom the hon. member has contacted since the debate on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can just say a further word; I had a note here, which I hope the president of the press gallery won’t mind my reading into the record, in which he said:

“We were told Welch is going to go ahead with Bill 139 as of today. In a letter sent to him, the gallery formally requested a delay to allow us to study the bill and express our opinion on it. The gallery opposes the principle that the government regulates areas of our profession without the decency of a consultation.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s what this letter says. I have since talked to the president, who is satisfied that their main concern was the fact that sketching was going to be prohibited. I reinforce what I said, that the immediate concerns have been looked after and they are satisfied, according to the president.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I have a minor and rather technical point with respect to the legislation. Looking at the definition of judicial proceeding, it means a proceeding of a court of record. It is my understanding, although I haven’t checked this carefully and I wish I had, that this Legislature, for instance, is precisely a court of record. If that is true, if that is the case, and I believe it is, then I think we are up against some rather minor difficulties --

Mr. Renwick: He has got you.

Mr. Lawlor: -- with respect to what goes on just beyond the door.

Mr. Cassidy: I told you there was censorship.

Mr. Lawlor: I would have the minister check that and let me know. Would he let me know?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would be glad to look into that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the point that my friend, the member for Ottawa Centre, makes. Of course if he wished to call for adjournment of the debate and force a division on it, we would support him. I don’t happen to share the specific concern which he has, but I understand his concern, I understand why he is upset about it; and I also appreciate the remarks which the minister has just made.

Mr. Breithaupt: What?

Mr. Renwick: I think it is very important. I think the minister has gone a long way toward meeting the objections which were of concern to me in the bill. I am delighted with the artist sketch part of it, and I recognize that it doesn’t cover the radio or a recording machine in court. I am concerned, however, at the penalty -- which we will come to in due course -- which I accept as a necessary penalty; if you are going to make this kind of a prohibition, you have got to enforce it.

But you have now introduced this amendment which substitutes “precincts” for “environments,” and you referred in the explanatory note to the Oxford and Webster dictionaries, which define the precincts as “the space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building.” My concern is the words “or other boundaries.”

Does it mean, for example, that the area enclosed by the famous iron fence around Osgoode Hall is part of the precincts of Osgoode Hall? Does it mean, on the courthouse on University Ave., the county courthouse for the judicial district of York, that a picture cannot be taken outside where the water fountain is but it can be taken on the sidewalk? So far as the old city hall is concerned, where many of the magistrates’ or the provincial court judges’ criminal jurisdiction is exercised, can the pictures be taken on the steps of the old city hall? Can they be taken on the grass in front of the old city hall?

All I am suggesting is that if we are going to impose this kind of a penalty, and if it in fact meets the need which the minister feels must be met by passing this legislation, would he consider inserting in subsection 1 of section 68(a) an actual definition of the phrase “precincts of the building” to mean the space enclosed by the walls of the building? It would allow us to do away with this nebulous question of whether or not a photographer was placing himself in jeopardy by taking a photograph outside the city hall of a person descending the city hall steps, or outside the courthouse on University Ave. because he happens to be standing by the fountain, or in the precincts of Osgoode Hall, outside the building but in the area surrounded by the iron fence.

I move the amendment for what it’s worth.

Mr. Renwick moves that subsection (1) of section 68(a) as contained in section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause: (c) “precincts of the building means the space enclosed by the walls of the building.”

Mr. Renwick: I am having trouble with the English language there. I don’t know whether it should be “precincts means” or “precincts mean.”

Mr. Singer: The parliamentary draftsman will fix it up for you.

Mr. Renwick: I will leave that to my friend.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I am wondering if the hon. member would allow us to deal with the two amendments that are before us first, and then we will deal with that one?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, of course, since you have more authority than I have, I will allow you to do whatever you see fit. The minister -- because they are all related to the same section -- introduced his two amendments at once and as I understand it we have both of them. I thought it made sense to put the third one in now and deal with each of them seriatim.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the opportunity of entering into the debate on second reading of this bill as I had commitments outside the city last Thursday. I am pleased to see that the initial changes suggested by my colleagues in the opposition were considered by the Attorney General and that he has come to conclusions with respect to the two particular points that had been raised at that time.

With respect to the matter of dealing now with sketches and graphic portraits, I am, I think, content with the comments made by the Attorney General that the particular immediate concerns of members of the news broadcasting media have been answered concerning the matters they thought were most important. The matters of the graphic portrait or sketch, I think, can safely be left if we look at the precincts of the building to be in accordance with the proposed amendment made by the hon. member for Riverdale.

Surely I think we are resolving the problems which might become a matter of inconvenience or nuisance to the court if we restrict the photographing that is likely to occur to the building itself. If one looks at the use of the word precincts, as at least I would understand it, when we’re talking about the precincts of this chamber, we would expect that the deliberations going on here would not be interfered with by certain persons if we said that the precincts of this chamber perhaps included the lobbies on each side or the area immediately in front of the chamber.

However, the Legislature might, in its wisdom, consider that the precincts, Mr. Speaker, were the entire building. I could see that it would be a reasonable extension to look at that definition from the point of view of the room and the adjacent 100 ft shall we say, to the building itself. To go outside the building, though, probably is being a little overly sensitive on the idea of the precincts of this Legislature.

Similarly, I think if we can define the word precincts to mean within the building in which the court of proceeding is being held, we will have gone a long way to resolve any particular problem that might come up when a judge, who might be somewhat more sensitive than his fellows, deals with a photographer who might have crossed his path -- to the photographer’s or the artist’s regret.

I would suggest that the amendment made by the hon. member for Riverdale is worthy of consideration as we define precincts. Otherwise, I think the amendments brought forward in this section are satisfactory. With the minister’s undertaking to give further consideration, at least to the members of the media as they look at other concerns, we would be prepared to support these amendments and to complete this debate in committee.

Mr. Singer: But take a chance on an editorial in the Globe.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I just wanted to speak to the amendment proposed to me by the hon. member for Riverdale, just to share in the spirit in this type of exchange. Once again the two principles involved are in section 3.

One, of course, was to preserve the physical dignity of the court process itself; and here we’re talking about the courtroom. Of course that particular matter isn’t of immediate concern when we talk about the precincts. But we’re talking, as well, about the personal dignity of those who participate.

Now the question is that if we’re going to be consistent on that point -- and I really want to discuss this -- if we confine it immediately to the physical boundaries of the building itself, that means as soon as the door of the building opens and the person sticks their nose out that door he can be photographed.

Now there has to be a boundary someplace, I appreciate that. And I assume that the concept of precinct, including the phrase “or other boundaries,” would in fact go to the iron gate at Osgoode Hall, the general grounds upon which the building is established. This is keeping in mind that the further ingredient to this prohibition, in addition to the actual location of the individual, is that it has to be an individual known to the photographer to be involved in some judicial process.

I must simply share with you that I’m concerned that if, in fact, we confine it to the physical boundary of the building, we perhaps would not be going that extra step that’s necessary to preserve that other purpose of the amendment, the privacy issue as far as the individual is concerned, to at least let them get off the so-called property of the courthouse before being subjected to whatever anybody else is subjected to in any other public place.

To be very honest with the committee, there is no question that in accepting the concept of precinct as it was used in the English statute, as it has been defined by the English Court of Appeal, the English court talking about the walls or other boundaries of a particular piece of building, at that stage it would talk about the immediate vicinity of the building in which the court was being held. Otherwise, as I have already pointed out, we would have this situation of people taking pictures of individuals known to them to be involved in some judicial proceeding as soon as they stuck their nose out of the building.

I am very concerned -- and I make no apology -- that as far as it is practical and as far as it is reasonable, and I think the important word is “reasonable,” to protect people as much as it is possible from undue publicity insofar as the judicial process is concerned; keeping in mind -- let me say it -- that there has to be a boundary some place that, once they step beyond it, they can in fact be subjected to this.

I would be concerned about the restrictiveness of the definition as it is contained in the amendment of the member for Riverdale, rather than preserving the phrase from the Oxford dictionary, which I shared with the members at the time of the introduction of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I am wondering, did the hon. member for St. George want to comment on the motion of the member for Riverdale?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Would the hon. member for Riverdale defer to the hon. member for St. George and then he can speak next?

Mr. Renwick: Certainly.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I share with the member for Riverdale a deep concern for the lack of real definition, having in mind the penalty involved. I think I raised that question last Thursday when we were dealing with the term “environs.”

When you look at the courthouse on University Ave., it doesn’t seem to me to be a very practical situation if people leave that building through what I suppose is the back portion of it and get out into the portion which mingles between the city hall portion and the building. This kind of thing gives me great concern if someone at that stage could in fact incur this kind of a penalty.

I would have to support the member for Riverdale in this because again I think if there is a fine of this kind, there should be some straight answer as to what the offence is -- and there should not be ambiguity about it. So with that in mind, I am supporting the amendment proposed by the member.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: If I may, I only want to make about two responses to the minister.

In proposing the amendment, I was concerned about the question of accuracy, so that a person who might be infringing the law would be subject to this heavy penalty without necessarily knowing that he was infringing the law. I think accuracy must be an overriding consideration; and, if I may use a dreadful term, the specificity of the definition is very important from that point of view so the person knows the point beyond which he cannot act without transgressing the law. That is the first point.

The second point -- and the minister used the term “reasonable” -- is that I am not quite certain that “reasonable” is the question to be put when you are deciding when the public interest and the private interest are each to be recognized, because that is always a difficult problem. The minister can use the word “reasonable” if he wishes, because he likes that kind of pall of sweet reasonableness even with a certain amount of indecision in the thought processes about it. But it would seem to me that the courthouses are public property in the first place, so that the restriction which you are imposing is a restriction imposed on the use of public property by the citizenry, for what you consider to be an overriding purpose with which I happen to agree; that is the dignity of the court proceedings in the sense that the minister has enunciated it. The person’s private interest surely does not mean that once he steps out of the doorway, or as he steps out of the doorway onto public property, that he’s not at that point in time a member of the public.

All right. I’ll leave it to the ingenuity of the private citizen who doesn’t want to be photographed to leave the courthouse on University Ave. by one of any number of exits, and similarly with the city hall and with Osgoode Hall. I’m just suggesting that if the citizen’s privacy is to be protected there comes a point at which it no longer deserves that protection, and the minister presumably wants it somewhere out where he steps on a sort of common sidewalk surrounding a courthouse, which is a public thoroughfare. He wants it extended that far.

I think at that point the minister has to give weight to the necessity of accuracy, because I don’t know, and I don’t imagine the minister knows, at what point the courthouse property on University Ave. stops. We do know at Osgoode Hall because of the iron fence; we don’t know about the city hall. I don’t know, for example, whether or not the city hall precincts, as the minister is going to use them, encompasses the grass space in front of the city hall on either side of the cenotaph.

It’s for those reasons that I would think that if one wants to balance off the various interests the interest of accuracy should take precedence over the privacy of the citizen in that situation, and we would in that way, I think, meet the public need.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to pursue the idea of adjourning the debate any further. I see the minister has made his decision that he doesn’t wish to do that and one knows what the result of the vote would be.

In a very general way I would just like to put on the record the fact that if tomorrow, or the next day or next week, the TV stations and other people in the media come back to this minister, it is because in the same way the government has systematically been alienating groups like farmers, teachers, hospital workers and so forth, the government now quite gratuitously is taking a similar kind of step in regard to the media of the province in not giving them reasonable time for an opportunity for consultation about this particular bill which affects, in a very fundamental way, the rights of journalists when they are covering judicial proceedings. I think that should go on the record.

Under some substantial pressure the minister did meet with the president of the press gallery in a quick corridor conversation during the question period today. He had a conversation with Mr. Stuebing of CFTO and he will presumably be seeing some communications from newspapers and the media over the next few days.

Perhaps it should go on record as well, if anybody from the media is reading this debate in the next couple of days, that if you know how it feels now to be treated this way that this is the way in which the government has been systematically treating many groups in Ontario society, not just for the last few months, but over the last many years. It’s an arrogant way in which the government is proceeding and I want that to go on record.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is being repetitious.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The second point I wanted to make is this. We now have a code of conduct in effect. I do thank the minister for at least making some changes to the very unworkable provisions which were put forward in the original bill when it was debated last week. We now have a code of conduct and there is a commitment by the minister that if anybody wants to sit down with him in the next coming months that he will sit down with them. Okay.

The minister, though, has been around politics long enough, and around the Legislature long enough, to know very well that it is much easier to make any changes that might be considered desirable -- in the balance, as he’s putting it, of the public interest and public access to the courts, versus the private interests of the people involved -- it is much easier to make those changes before the legislation is introduced than afterwards.

After today there will be a code enshrined in legislation, and there has never been one before. It will therefore be much more difficult if the electronic media, which tend to get the back of the hand from this Legislature in general anyway -- after all they can’t bring their cameras into this place, let alone into the courts -- it will be much more difficult for them to get changes that might be workable, practicable and desirable, than it would have been had there been reasonable consultation beforehand.

Thirdly, the problem that has been raised by the member for Riverdale I think is a very real one. Perhaps once again, as a former working journalist who has worked on daily as well as weekly newspapers, I can say to the minister that photographers, whether they be still photographers, movie photographers or TV photographers, aren’t all necessarily journalists who also write, and they certainly aren’t necessarily lawyers.

For that matter, some photographers have a very strong visual sense, but not too strong a verbal sense, if the minister sees the distinction. In other words, if you ask them to understand what is meant by “precincts” and to know where the magic line is outside the University Ave. courthouse or the Daly St. courthouse in Ottawa, they may find that very difficult to follow. If the minister is looking for a code which is reasonable and which is enforceable and through which everybody knows where they stand, given a degree of the severity of the penalties that are proposed in the amendment, then I would suggest very strongly that the proposal of the member for Riverdale be accepted.

It seems to me that when we debated last Thursday the uncertainty of the word “environs,” the minister quite rightly reacted by saying: “Okay, we’ll try and give it greater certainty.” The member for Lakeshore and I in fact were disagreeing, because I said that the minister had referred to the courthouse steps and the member for Lakeshore said: “No, it is within but not without.” Now it turns out that it is without to some indeterminate line.

At least it isn’t across the street to the pub which is opposite the courthouse in Ottawa, and isn’t down around the corner from Osgoode Hall here in Toronto. At least that’s clear. But where the line is, is still not ultimately clear. Given the penalty of $10,000, which is a very severe penalty -- after all, that is as much as some of these photographers actually make in a year -- it seems to me that a clear, simple, enforceable line should be drawn at this time.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s the maximum.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the maximum, but that’s what they are putting themselves to risk for, whether or not that’s what the court would impose.

But you leave it open to a photographer to be hounded. You leave it open for a judge to go after a photographer. You leave it open to people who make $50,000 a year, who are learned in the law, to go after these people who are perhaps in fact more ignorant than anything else in terms of the application of the bill.

I’ll have some other comments on the first two amendments. If the minister himself is saying that right now he’s looking for something of an interim measure so he can get his extra judges; so that the present practice can be codified so that he can then sit down over a period of time with CFTO and CBC and the other people who are concerned with seeing whether some longer term changes might be worked out, then I would have thought that he could accept the amendment of the member for Riverdale for now and then come back. In six months or a year’s time and at that time, if in his best judgement the definition of “precincts” really ought to be widened to go to the street from the courthouse door, then do it. If, on the other hand, it’s decided that under certain conditions, certain kinds of cameras can be allowed, let’s say into the anterooms but not into the chambers themselves, then that can be done at that time, too. But don’t leave it in a fuzzy state -- and that’s what the minister is doing unless he accepts this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I am wondering if it is the pleasure of the committee that we deal with the amendments individually first.

Hon. Mr. Welch has moved that subsections (2) and (3) of section 68(a) as contained in section 3 of the bill be amended.

Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if it is possible to talk to the section after it is amended, then I will simply go ahead. If not, I would like to talk now. I’d like to know also whether the minister is willing to agree to the member for Riverdale’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: It would seem to the Chair that any discussion on the amendment should be made before the vote is taken.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay; just for the record, I don’t necessarily have the support of the member for Riverdale on this. It’s a matter on which people can legitimately differ. I am a journalist by background; the member for Riverdale, like the minister, is a lawyer by training and practice.

It’s obvious that everybody in the House will welcome this change, which removes one of the real ambiguities from the bill. The permission of the right to sketch in court makes a lot of sense.

I would just say, personally, that I think that with modem technology both tape recorders and cameras can be put into a courtroom under the control of the judge; and that is with the powers of regulation of courtroom discipline the judge has. This is no different than permitting the reporter for the written press to go in with his pen.

That position has got to be accepted and has got to be understood in an age when people derive well over half of their information about what’s happening in current affairs not from the written press but from the electronic media.

I know the minister wouldn’t agree to a bill that deprived reporters going into a courtroom of their pencils or pens. That would be absurd. But yet that is what he is doing with the prohibition of photography or of TV recording, or by inference of microphone recording, of tape recording anything that happened within the courtroom.

Mr. Roy: That’s not so.

Mr. Cassidy: And at least personally, I cannot agree with that and I wish this section was not being passed in its present form.

The amendment itself is welcome, and I would support that particular amendment referring to sketching.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, may I just say this on the amendment to clarify the remarks made by the member for Ottawa Centre. Last week we suggested this amendment to the minister because it appeared somewhat ridiculous that you would let reporters go in and scratch on their pads to make notes and yet not let them make a sketch.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s important to clarify for the record something that the member for Ottawa Centre said about denying the electronic media the right to photograph or to have their cameras in a courtroom. This is not a strict denial of the press to communicate through their media what is going on in the courtroom. There is nothing wrong with the electronic press, for instance, giving their comments over radio as to what happened in a courtroom. They can be present personally. The only prohibition is for them to record, or have the electronic equipment in the courtroom.

It is not, as the member for Ottawa Centre said that you are denying the public, through that media press of what happened in the courtroom. There is nothing wrong with the electronic media filming outside the precincts of the courtroom. There is nothing wrong with a reporter, in fact, using electronic equipment to say what went on in a courtroom.

The only prohibition, Mr. Chairman, is to stop cameras from filming, for instance, inside the courtroom. This would prevent people from running around the place taking photographs during the court proceedings. And we must do this if we are to keep some respect for the courts. This is necessary, for our system to function adequately. I don’t think you could, for instance, allow the recording of a witness who is giving his evidence; or the filming of the judge giving his charge to the jury.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is the distinction that has to be made. It is not an absolute denial. The reporter can film outside the precinct; give his comments over television or over radio. I think that point should be clear; we should get that situation cleared up.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Ottawa East is perfectly right when he says that a television reporter can, in fact, have himself photographed, from the steps of the courthouse, I suppose, or at least outside of the courthouse, giving a commentary on what had gone on inside. And a radio reporter can --

Mr. Roy: He can also photograph a witness.

Mr. Cassidy: A radio reporter can do that as well. A print reporter’s notebook looks like this; however a radio reporter’s notebook is two items; one is like this and the other is the tape in his tape recorder. A television reporter’s notebook consists of the visual record on film or on video tape in addition to whatever notes he may have made. That’s the point which is ignored by the gentlemen learned in the law in general; and I don’t speak specifically to the member for Ottawa East on that.

I am quite critical at times about the superficiality of some of the coverage by the electronic media of important affairs of state, including trials and, this place, the Legislature, but I think the point is still, nevertheless, well taken, that their notebooks include the audio or visual record and not simply what they can put down on paper. This is a point which everybody else who has spoken on the debate has ignored in their concern about the dignity of the courtroom. One can’t help but wonder whether maybe a few judges, like the fellow who ordered $2.16 an hour in his arbitration when the minimum wage is higher than that, perhaps shouldn’t be brought up to date, face to face with the realities of the modern world by having that exposure to the media, in the way that that fellow clearly wasn’t.

At any rate, I have put on the record my concern about this. I know that this concern is shared by people in the electronic media. It is of less importance to people in the written media because of the fact that they have and have always had access. Now that they have been assured that they can also sketch, the right to photograph or not to photograph is not so important to them as long as they can sketch.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of the minister’s amendment as previously read will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

Amendment agreed to.

I will now read the minister’s further amendment.

“Hon. Mr. Welch moves that subclause (iii) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 682 as contained in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out ‘environs of the room or’ in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘precincts of the.’”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, on that point, would it not be appropriate at this time to put the amendment proposed by the member for Riverdale and then the amendment itself?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that’s reasonable. The House is being asked to vote on the use of the word “precincts” and connected with it has been an amendment which has been introduced subsequent to that defining precincts. I haven’t heard from either the member for Lakeshore or the member for Downsview with respect to that. If they have any comments, I would like to have them. My concern is that if we are not very careful here we will have the Toronto situation dictate the practice throughout the whole province. It is quite clear what I mean when I am talking about the courthouse in St. Catharines. There is no question what precincts will mean there and what precincts would mean in all kinds of places.

Mr. Cassidy: What does it mean?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as I’m concerned, the courthouse lawn is part of the precincts. There would be no question in any reporter’s mind in the city of St. Catharines what the precincts of the Niagara north courthouse would be.

Mr. Cassidy: Up to the fence.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It would be to the fence around the courthouse. If we are not careful here, we will have a situation that as soon as the person gets to the front door he has to put a bag over his head to get out and down the steps, if he doesn’t want to have his picture taken or some silly thing like this. If we agree, and I think the member for Riverdale put it very well, we have got to start weighing up peoples’ interests. I am impressed by the argument that there are some rights as well for people to know where they are or where they are not going in contravention of the Act. That’s an impressive argument.

The point is if we take it right up to the wall of the building, however, we do deny at least some reasonable access from and to the building of those going to the judicial process. I said in earlier comments that there has to be a boundary some place. The English Court of Appeal found that in defining it. I’m worried here about this in trying to accommodate the Toronto situation. I can see what the hon. member for St. George says about the Toronto situation. It wouldn’t be the same at Osgoode Hall. It would be quite clear what the precincts of Osgoode Hall would be or what the precincts of any one of the Toronto courthouses would be. Unfortunately, what troubles me in accepting a definition that leaves out our other boundary, because the Court of Appeal itself talked about there being a reasonable area around the building itself which would be deemed to be part of the precincts, is that I would be far too narrow. That is why we agree with the general principle that we are trying to be more particular. We agree with the general principle that people taking part in the judicial process are entitled to some privacy. I didn’t want to so restrict it that, as soon as the door opened, they were exposed to some thing that we have been trying to protect them from, although I appreciate that at some point they cross a line where they are subject to whatever the consequences may be with any member of the public.

So, if it is in order, I would appreciate hearing from the hon. member for Downsview and the hon. member for Lakeshore, as critics of this ministry, with respect to this attempt to be too particular in defining “precincts”; a term which, I understand from my homework since Thursday, seems to be generally accepted by the courts.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George has made a valid point, that we should deal with Mr. Renwick’s amendment first.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just before you do, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if --

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I was going to suggest that I would reread his amendment and then we will hear from the hon. member for Downsview:

“Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 1 of section 68a as contained in section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause: (c) ‘of the building precinct’ -- ‘Precinct of the building’ would mean the space enclosed by the walls of the building.”

I must take a reading lesson from the hon. member.

The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, bowing to the minister’s request, I must return to my original thought. I think clause 3 is unnecessary. Now that we are going to have it, I think we’ve got to try and define it within some reasonable boundaries. My friend, the Attorney General, was talking about the lawn in front of the courthouse in St. Catharines. If there was a particularly newsworthy trial, I feel certain that the television cameras would be lined up just at the boundary of the lawn.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what they are doing in London.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, but you could at least let them out of the building.

Mr. Singer: Yes, you let them out of the building. Do you mean as they walk out the door or as they cross the sidewalk? Do we have signs up that say “Precincts start here” or “Precincts stop here,” “Don’t walk on the precincts” or something like that?

I think that by trying to codify this we get into this kind of a quibble, so I wish you would take the whole thing away. I don’t think you need it. I think the judges can control it. That goes back to my original point. But now that you are going to have it, for goodness sake make it definite. Make it definite and say “within the four walls.” Come back to Toronto, in our courthouse, the new courthouse in the city hall square or off the precincts of the city hall square, there are all sorts of offices in there -- surrogate court and county court and sheriff’s court and so on -- and I don’t really know what harm would be done if you take a picture on the first floor of somebody who may be on his way to a courtroom up on the fourth floor.

I’m prepared, for the sake of some clarity, to go along with “in the boundaries of the building.” I would support the amendment for the sake of clarity.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Having been invited, my basic disposition on this particular clause is to ask that you delete the whole thing, because I don’t personally feel any great impress or any need for it.

Mr. Singer: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: If some riot or squabble or some insupportable public act had occurred recently, or even within memory, that would make this an exigency, then fine. But you dream; out of the air you get your fictional, mythical entities. You’ve got enough to do around here without bothering with this. We’ll get around to Clement’s stuff in a few moments; stuff with some meat in it.

Mr. Roy: There’s a lot of meat there all right.

Mr. Lawlor: This is as woolly as blazes. If you really want to know, I don’t think that “precincts” is all that great an improvement over “environs.” Considering the grotesqueness of the penalty, I was just going to make the ludicrous more ludicrous by suggesting that perhaps you would have to say, if you want to stick to the term “precincts,” but at no greater distance than 15 or 25 feet from the front door, and if somebody was over the line slightly he could be hit with a $10,000 line.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we could have something about “the environs of the precincts.”

Mr. Lawlor: They are going to have to measure it pretty closely, you know. And then my friend, Cassidy, goes and complicates all my thinking, all my profound thoughts on this issue, by talking about telephoto lenses immediately outside the 25 feet perimeter --

Mr. Cassidy: We will draw a line and call it the “Welch Line.”

Mr. Lawlor: -- that we are going to set up as an electronic wall, so to speak, around the area.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: So if you drive us to it and keep the thing at all, which you are going to do obviously, then I too am going to have to come down against it on the basis of what my friends say. It seems to me that this kind of legislation in the American jurisdiction would run against either the first or the fifth amendment -- probably the first amendment -- of the United States constitution. We are not particularly concerned with that, of course, but they have these written and highly institutionalized forms of civil liberties and protection, and it wouldn’t do us any harm, with all the vagaries and vacuities of the British, to take a look at the American jurisdiction in this regard. The British work by rule of thumb and habit. They do not have the constitutional limitations that have been written down there and tested time and time again.

It seems to me that to protect up to the walls of the building and going out the door, perhaps prevents the kind of thing you are after -- God knows what you are after -- that is, some brouhaha inside the courthouse itself, with people quarrelling with one another, pushing, shoving, shouting, taking pictures, whatever it may be. But beyond those doors, if you are seeking to protect personal privacy, there are other ways of going about it.

On the other hand, I think you’ll admit that people involved in criminal proceedings have to or may be expected to, or will be accustomed to, or will accept as rather commonplace, as they do today, that perhaps they would have to face a photographer coming out of the building. It’s part of the overall public realm. Are you so neat, so circumscribed and so nice about personal liberties in this particular regard, over against the public realm, the protection of the property, of the building and the decorum of the courts, if you will? That particular consideration would seem to be a prime one to start with, for it is largely eliminated as you go beyond the building itself.

Therefore, you are going to have to balance a sense of privacy in not wishing to have your picture taken over against the public realm, which is entitled to know which people resort to, under what circumstances and, if there is a matter of some urgent public importance, would be prepared to do that. Therefore, again, you have always balanced the other way; you have balanced in favour of a constricted view of the benefits to the particular individuals involved at all costs. I say that may not be the best and the wisest dimension of public policy.

Again, one comes back to the motion of the member for Riverdale, saying, “All right. Since we are going to have enormous difficulties in determining the geographical limitations of this, the simplest and easiest way, on the basis of the definition of precinct as it originally emerged, is simply to set up those walls.” Beyond that, the thing becomes so vague and so indeterminate, and the penalty is so great for the infringement of the thing, that it is not fair judicial legislation proceeding from the Attorney General in terms of justice and prosecution.

People are entitled to know, as a basic fundament of our law, what they are up against. And dragging this kind of thing into legislation leaves it so indeterminate and so vague as to attract great penalties on the most nebulous of issues. That being the case, I would proceed to prevail upon you -- for the nonce at least, since there is give and take in this particular debate -- to accept the proposal of the member for Riverdale and see how it works. Then if you think you have to go beyond that in some future occasion because somebody has breached the spirit of the thing, then so be it; move in at that stage.

Hon. Ms. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I have one more thought I’d like to express to the Attorney General. To some extent he is legislating good taste in the journalist’s mind. There is a notorious murder trial in the city of London at the moment. One of our local newspapers, for some reason best known to itself, saw fit to publish on the front page a semi-nude picture of a female person who had been involved in some of the evidence. I thought that episode in that newspaper’s history was very distasteful. There is nothing here that can prevent that sort of thing; nor can we attempt, I don’t think, to legislate what a newspaper can or cannot publish. It is to be hoped that the feeling of aversion that many people expressed about that particular display is going to have its effect.

I think the further we go into this, the more dependent we are going to be on the good taste and the good intelligence of most members of the media, who in most cases act with good taste. And when you get so vague and try to defend, and perhaps give this arbitrary power, then I think you are getting into danger. So I go back to my original position: If you feel you have to have section 3, for goodness’ sake make it as definite as you can and accept the amendment of the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the Attorney General to accept the views of my colleague from Downsview.

Again adverting to the use of this building as a court, one would think that if the example used would prevent this kind of, shall we say, photographic or media interference with an individual -- at least from the individual’s point of view -- it would be quite sufficient to hold the terms and the boundaries to be this building. There are half a dozen entrances and exits. If someone wished to go through the underground passage and disappear into the Macdonald Block and come out at any one of a dozen or 20 exits, I am sure the person could avoid having to have photographs or interviews taken in such a way as to be a breach of this section.

I think that the area of the building is sufficient when we look at any of the courthouses in the province and probably find that they have four or five entrances or exits and it’s most unlikely that there will be a cameraman at each one of those at a specific time. When the matter of a telephoto lens is brought up, then it doesn’t really matter whether the photographer is standing immediately outside the outside door of the building, or whether he happens to be in a car across the street.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The important point there won’t be where the photographer is because he could well be outside the environs. It will be where the individual being photographed is.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the individual being photographed is stepping outside the front door, it isn’t going to matter all that much what the situation is. I think that from the comments certainly made on this side of the House, it would appear that while the section may be seen as not to be of particularly vital importance in the administration of justice, the one point that does come up is that if we are to have the section, we should attempt to define for the benefit of all persons who will be concerned just what the term means. I think the definition of the word “precincts” as brought forward by the member for Riverdale is a satisfactory one and I would think its acceptance to see whether it works over the next year or so would be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Having asked for some comments I appreciate having them. I just want to make two or three observations.

No. 1, although I appreciate the suggestion that I am being particularly original about bringing in such a section, I would remind you that in 1925, nearly 50 years ago, it was considered to be important enough to form part of the Criminal Justice Act of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Singer: We’ve never had legislation on this matter and don’t need any now.

Mr. Lawlor: And we have been good enough to live without it since 1925. Imagine that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, 2, the word “precincts” is there and has been well understood with respect to the definition which was referred to in the court.

No. 3, if one wanted to really make an honest and consistent case -- I don’t want to use the word “honest” -- a consistent argument with respect to knowing where you stand, leaving it to the discretion of a trial judge in each individual situation, it certainly isn’t being very definite as to where you stand. You don’t know until you come into contact with him what position you are going to be in.

However, having said all that and having listened to the argument, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Riverdale at this stage to give it some practical application. Also, consistent with the fact that the whole question raised by the member for Ottawa Centre will be the subject matter of some discussion later on with respect to the section, at this stage of the game we will have “precincts” defined as suggested by the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The chairman has been rereading the amendments and inasmuch as Mr. Renwick’s amendment refers to precincts, which wasn’t in the original bill, and the minister’s amendment does refer to precincts, I would suggest that we take the amendment dealing with the minister’s suggestion first and then --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Go back and define it.

Mr. Chairman: -- we’ll go back and define it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, because we have reached the end of the debate I think now, I appreciate the minister’s accepting that amendment. As the member for Lakeshore has said, he and I are both unhappy with this subsection 3 whether you amend it or not, and this is the only vote we will take on the subsection. I just wish that the minister had been willing to accept that this whole business of the precincts is a very exaggerated and elongated area zone of privacy, so to speak, to create when what was really needed was to talk about the court room and maybe the doors in and out of the court room and no more.

Mr. Chairman: Shall these amendments carry? We shall deal first with that of Mr. Welch.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: And now Mr. Renwick’s.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill as amended be reported?

Mr. Cassidy: I have an amendment I would like to place at this time.

Mr. Cassidy moves that subsection (4) of section 68 (a) as it appears in section 3 of the bill be amended by changing the figure “$10,000,” to the figure “$1,000.”

Mr. Cassidy: If I can just speak briefly to that, Mr. Chairman. One is tempted to think that when they were drafting the bill the penalty clause was simply dredged out of the files in the Ministry of Justice, where it had been mouldering for some time, and without any real consideration as to whether the fine was reasonable in relation to the offence.

As the minister will notice, I have left the six months in the case of a grave offence by a newspaper or a TV station. With the wealth of the Toronto Star or of CFTO or the CBC, then clearly money itself is not a particular penalty. And it seems to me that if the judges are really offended by what has been done, then a jail sentence might be in order if the dignity of the court had been grossly offended; in the same way as is carried out under contempt proceedings.

But to put photographers and TV cameramen and so on at risk for almost a year’s salary is crazy. I can see, however, that the minister -- let’s acknowledge it -- having yielded substantially in several sections of the bill, is now digging his heels in. We would suggest that you grant this amendment too, and see how it works. And if $1,000 is not found to be an adequate penalty then, when you bring the bill back, you can increase it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, how do you cope with a member like this? I mean, “digging my heels in,” because I’ve given in! However, I suppose one has to accept anything in the committee stage. But I point out to you that one of the reasons that I was impressed by the argument with respect to being somewhat definite was the fine. And having been impressed by that argument, he can’t have his cake and eat it too. In fact, that was a fairly important part of the argument in giving some consideration --

Mr. Singer: Specificity.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Being very specific with respect to precincts. Now, having succeeded in that, they want to turn around and reduce the penalty, which was being used as an argument for making a change before. I can’t accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, could I say that if the minister was using the word “they” without sufficient specificity, I wish he would confine it to our friends on the left, because we do not share their view on this.

Mr. Cassidy: You would have increased it.

Mr. Singer: If this offence is now going to be created to be an offence by this Legislature, and if it is a very, very serious degree, then the maximum fine could well be $2,000. We will not support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I can think of two reasons why we cannot support the amendment. First of all, basically, in the overall enactment and enforcement of the legislation, you’ve got to have faith in your judges and the people who are going to be enforcing these laws. It would seem to me that, even though it’s clear that the $10,000 is the maximum, do we have faith in the judges who are going to be imposing these fines, or don’t we? That’s what it boils down to.

The second point that bothers me about the amendment is that --

Mr. Cassidy: Why put any figure at all?

Mr. Roy: Why put any figure at all? Because I think you want to state what the policy of the legislation is. Every piece of legislation should have some maximum, because we make the laws and not the judges. And you, of all people, should know that.

Mr. Lawlor: But you don’t have faith in the judges. You are giving them some indication of how serious you think it is.

Mr. Roy: The other point that bothers me about this amendment is that if the minimum or the maximum fine is too low, and you keep the six months, if some judge at some time feels that the maximum fine is not adequate, he’s liable to look at the jail term rather than be looking at imposing a greater monetary penalty. And for that particular reason we feel that --

Mr. Lawlor: Well, we will cut that down to 10 days.

Mr. Roy: -- curbs have to be put on that type of legislation. We feel that the fine of $10,000 will be enforced justly and with equity by the courts which will have to impose these punishments. And it seems to us that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is basically one of playing a bit of politics -- I suppose for the press -- on this. It is not a matter of judicial knowledge.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, come on now.

Mr. Roy: If you weren’t sitting so close to him you would agree with me, but he is hanging on to your wrist, that is your problem.

Mr. Cassidy: The member is bucking for a judgeship.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved that section 3, covering section 68(a) subsection (4), be amended by changing the figure “$10,000” to the figure “$1,000”.

All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5, agreed to.

Bill 139, as amended, reported.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 152, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill, and if so, which one?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, let’s start at 1.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Now he gets to the meat of the thing.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, can I take a chunk out of you, nibble slightly at the edges on 1. What is it about? What is it here for? That note at the side tells me absolutely nothing.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The ball is in the minister’s court.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I am sorry, I didn’t hear the member. Is it section 1 you are talking about?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I asked the question to give me time to look at the rest of it.

Mr. Stokes: Explain the bill to him.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Actually the marginal note there is very clear, Mr. Chairman, and I am positive that the member for Lakeshore has absolutely no difficulty in understanding it.

Mr. Singer: It was written by the minister himself.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Many of the companies which are so-called loan companies are really operating as section 3(2) private companies, as we used to call them, under the Business Corporations Act. They are borrowing money from financial institutions and investing in real estate only, and really are not within the full definition of a loan company as we know it, under the definition within the Act.

I don’t think I have anything else to say in connection with that. Is there anything else? I am directing this through you, Mr. Chairman, as a question to the member for Lakeshore. Is there anything else I can help him with on that particular section?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, let’s put it this way, both with respect to that section and section 2 -- although don’t let’s jump too quickly to it, because I want to ask about subordinated notes -- are these, as you see them, a form of MICs or are they something completely distinct from mortgage investment corporations? Or do some mortgage corporations participate in this particular corporate form? That is what I am kind of after here.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, under our legislation, trust companies can invest up to 12½ times, or borrow up to 12½ times the multiple of their unimpaired equity. Let us say we had a trust company in Ontario which had an unimpaired net equity of $1 million. That company can accept deposits and moneys for investment up to $12.5 million, assuming the net equity assets over liabilities net were $1 million.

There is a procedure in the legislation whereby, on application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and upon meeting certain conditions, this can be enlarged up to 20 times. That then will bring that company into the position where with the net equity, if we can always regard that as remaining the same, upon completing the application and meeting the criteria, then $20 million can be obtained and put out for mortgage investment and this sort of thing -- the trust company can do it on behalf of its own operation.

On the subordinated note, the situation today is that not all, but many, trust companies are up to that 20 times net and can go no further to raise additional capital by the sale of their own shares. They are competing with the equity markets downtown. Quite frankly, it’s not an attractive arrangement for the potential investor and they find themselves stymied. They find themselves in the position where, really, they don’t want to take any money on deposit or offer any more guaranteed investment certificates because they really can’t put it out.

The subordinated note situation would allow them to exceed the 20 times if they were at that level. For all intents and purposes here let’s consider that they are, because if they weren’t they could bring it up to the 20 times. The subordinated note procedure would allow them to have additional moneys available upon certain conditions being met.

Again, the company with the $1 million equity could, on the strength of that, issue subordinated notes at one-quarter of the net equity times the multiple of 20.

Mr. Singer: It’s 25 times.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, it’s 25 per cent of the net equity, which would be $250,000 times the 20.

Mr. Singer: Yes. One-quarter times 20 is five, so you get 20 plus five.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. Now, similar legislation, for those federally incorporated trust companies is now awaiting royal assent in Ottawa. Our intention is to allow the extra-provincial companies carrying on business and relations here to do so and our own Ontario companies to be on a comparable basis with them. We’re talking about making available most substantial sums of money, because it came to my attention this afternoon that there is one trust company in this province that is prepared now to put out -- They have $40 million available. The factor there would be $10 million times the 20, so that one company would have available an additional $200 million for investment.

Mr. Singer: Another five times, yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now, the trust companies by law have to have not less than 50 per cent of their moneys for investment in mortgages under certain conditions and meeting certain criteria. I am advised that, particularly in this day and age, about 70 per cent to 80 per cent is the average for trust companies in the real-estate residential mortgage market today. So I very strongly state to the House that this type of legislation will permit those extraprovincial companies and the Ontario trust companies to make available many millions of dollars of mortgage money to the public of this province. That is the situation, as I understand it, insofar as the subordinated note is concerned.

The subordinated note ranks after all other creditors. For purposes of computing how much they can raise it is considered to be part of the unimpaired net equity, but it does not compete with the deposits; it does not compete with the GICs; it does not even compete with the creditors.

Mr. Singer: Is it subject to the guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. So it is not, from my point of view, the type of investment that would attract the individual unless that individual was a substantial shareholder in that particular trust company. Then he says: “In order that my company, in which I own three per cent,” or whatever it might be, “can do better and get bigger so that I will benefit, I will take a block of $50,000,” or $100,000, or whatever it is, “and buy that amount of subordinated notes in order to have this additional liquidity available for the market.”

The very sophisticated, large investors might well move into subordinated notes because 0.125 or 0.25 per cent on many millions of dollars could be rather attractive, but to the small -- if I may use that expression -- investor, a person who has $50,000 or $100,000 to invest, it’s not going to be that all-fired attractive. Why would he bother, when he can go and put it in a GIC and he doesn’t have to worry about it and he can put $100,000 in five different trust companies and know every dollar is effective? So that, basically, is the situation.

The alternative is, if you don’t do this, when royal assent is given to the federally incorporated trust companies legislation they are going to be able to release this additional money and our own trust companies incorporated here in Ontario and those extraprovincial ones which have a licence to do business in Ontario really would be discriminated against in that they can’t compete.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I’m concerned because what in effect the minister is doing, even though by a lesser way, is increasing the incidence of investment from 20 to 25 times. I think the minister’s arithmetic and mine have met at that point. When you take a quarter of their capital and multiply that by 20, then you have another five, which you add to the original 20.

The select committee, as the minister knows, since he was at one time chairman of it, has been sitting for some time now.

Mr. Stokes: For years.

Mr. Singer: Yes, for years. And it will probably sit for many years yet, because the expertise the committee has developed has effected very important and valuable changes in the law of the province of Ontario already and will continue to do so.

What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that we have been very seriously considering the limits on the money that can be put out for investment. I don’t know as yet that we’ve come to any conclusion.

One thing I have I think learned, as these deliberations have been going on in a variety of jurisdictions, is that there are very many different opinions. Certainly sitting here in Toronto, as we’ve done, and having with us at most times representatives of major trust companies, I have gathered the impression that there has been something less than great enthusiasm for extending these limits. There has been, particularly in view of the unsettled money conditions of the world today and of North America today, a concern about what might happen to some of the more venturesome trust companies, perhaps some of the newer ones, if this bridle were taken off.

I’m trying to phrase this as carefully as I can without pointing in any particular direction. I detected something less than any real enthusiasm for this kind of an extension from the trust company representative -- they have an association and their representative has been here -- and from senior knowledgeable individuals from individual trust companies who sat with us for many of our meetings. The reason that I would ascribe to this has been their genuine worry as competent small-c conservative businessmen who are anxious to protect the investment of their company and their shareholders and to make sure that they don’t get into difficulty, and their anxiety to protect the integrity of the industry. There has been something less than any enthusiasm expressed to us for the extension of this borrowing and/or lending facility.

It seemed more than strange to me, while the committee is still continuing its deliberations, and I would anticipate that we are going to come forward with a report on our studies into loan and trust corporations within the next couple of months, that the minister should jump the gun and bring in this legislation. He says companion legislation exists in Ottawa and is waiting royal proclamation. That may be, and that may apply to federal corporations insofar as federal permission is needed. But when federal corporations and extraprovincial corporations do business in Ontario, they can only do business in accordance with the particulars of their registration with the Province of Ontario.

If the want to enter into this kind of financial adventure in the Province of Ontario -- adventure was a bad word -- venture in the Province of Ontario, they still have to do it with the consent and approval of the registrar, because they have to register with him in order to carry on business here. I haven’t even heard the registrar and the officials who have been at our committee regularly express any anxiety that this presently be done.

I would feel much more comfort in going along with this if I had the advantage of hearing the opinions of the registrar and his staff and of hearing the opinions of the representatives of the various trust companies with whom we have dealt for a number of months, and let them explore some of the doubts they have already expressed to us both publicly and privately.

I am not trying to build up any great storm of concern, but I have been impressed generally with the careful nature of the representations we have received from these companies and the lack of any positive indication from the registrar and his staff that this kind of a step should be taken. I am wondering if the tail might be wagging the dog, that because a bill originated in Ottawa, perhaps in the Senate banking committee -- who knows? -- we now are faced with it here on the basis that, well, if Ottawa thinks it’s good, it must be good.

I don’t know if the minister feels there is any great urgency about this, but if he does I would like to hear him tell us why. If there is no great urgency, and since it would appear this session of the Legislature is headed for adjournment in a few weeks and our committee is going to meet fairly frequently through the month of January, would there be any objection to deferring this bill until the Legislature convenes in the spring, and in the meantime letting the committee hold some kind of hearings in this regard.

I hear what the minister says. I don’t know the extent to which he has consulted either the industry or his staff. I am sure he and his staff have sat down and talked together about this and he has received the advice of his senior officials, and that’s why he is here with this bill. I would like to hear some full-fledged public discussions. I would like to hear from the various gentlemen who have sat in on the many sessions of our committee. I would like to hear the opinion of our counsel. I would like to hear the opinion of the various committee members. Frankly, I am a little concerned because what I have heard and listened to over the past several months about the economic dangers that we are facing in this time of unusual inflation, soaring interest rates and uncertainties, sounds a warning bell to me. If we move the lid up a little higher, are we running into a danger that perhaps we can’t foretell at this particular time and that perhaps the only justification for it is that they have done it in Ottawa?

I am not always impressed by a particular statute that comes forward from the House of Commons. I ask the minister to carefully consider the possibility of having some better form and Forum of public discussion. It’s not going to be the kind of public discussion that perhaps would be aroused by a rent control bill. It’s going to be a kind of discussion that would involve people who are in the financial business in the Province of Ontario. It would involve the senior officials of the minister’s department, who would be able to come and tell us fully and frankly what exactly they think about this.

In so saying, I am not saying that they haven’t been completely open and frank with the minister, but I am concerned about this being here when we have had the same topic of discussion before, as I personally have detected no great feeling that the incidence of investment should be moved from 20 per cent to 25 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I really didn’t get much of an answer on that first type of corporation, with the loan corporations being able to borrow only on debentures and the trust corporations not being able to borrow on debentures and not being able to borrow by way of deposits but only by way of GIFs. You are carving out a kind of corporation here which is distinct from the two. I just wonder what the specific purpose of it was. Was it just a case that there are these kinds of corporations, probably as subsidiaries to more major corporations, that do not accept deposits, or issue debentures? It does neither of these things. It is more like a trust company, in other words. But if it issues debentures, then it would be a loan corporation. It seems this type of corporation falls somewhere between the stools.

However, that is a minor matter. Section 2 will bring us more to what I want under this head as to a very particular kind of animal that you are trying to erect in the statute. On the subordinate notes, Mr. Chairman, this is only the definition section. I think we can cover the waterfront at this stage -- it occurs in its principal part later on in the statute -- by simply doing it now. The standing Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce heard evidence in Ottawa on Oct. 23 this year from Mr. R. Humphreys, superintendent of the department of insurance for the federal government, who has his counterpart here in Ontario. Mr. Humphreys, by the way, has made dissertations to our committee. He went before the Senate committee to make a thorough presentation for the various motivations and considerations that went into the constitution of their statute, which is almost identical to ours. That is very clear and very informative reading. It is almost exciting in the way in which the thing is presented.

The problem is that a trust corporation has a certain basic capital position, let’s say $1 million, which is the least sum that it can put in. Then it is tied as to its deposits in borrowing powers to some kind of ratio against that base and over the years the surplus accumulated into the base. Over the years it has gone from two different ratios that you can take in guaranteed trust funds. It used to be five times the initial base, then 10 times and then it jumped. I have the various years; they are all down here.

Humphreys says the ratios have changed from time to time over the years. They were raised to 10 times since 1958. Then they went up to 15 times in 1965 and 20 times in 1970. Just to dwell over that for a moment, he says that he would become personally a little troubled -- maybe more than a little -- if it went to 30. But he said in the old days, when the ratios were first set up, everyone thought that 124 times would be just about as much as you could possibly go, leaving solidity in there for the guaranteed trust funds in the situation. That has been expanded, and now the situation has been reached that many trust corporations, as I understand it, have reached their ceilings.

As I understand the situation, if they have reached their ceilings of, say, 20 times their capital and surplus, the retained earnings, then they can’t take any more deposits in. They are finished. Some kind of elasticity is going to have to be worked into the statute. The purpose of the subordinate notes, although they form part of whatever the ratio may be, is to alleviate the guaranteed demand upon the corporation, so that the sophisticated type of investor, prepared to put his money on this basis, while he will come before the shareholders, comes before nobody else. He is sticking his neck out to a very considerable extent.

You could say why doesn’t the trust company expand its financial base by issuing more shares? That is not always feasible or possible. It could get a higher ratio by doing that. Sometimes they do by absorbing other trust corporations and that kind of thing and putting them into their business. I understand too that this is going to be nicely circumscribed in your legislation. Not everybody is going to be given that range up above 20. I think the feeling is that the 20 ratio, one to 20, is pretty ticklish right at that particular point.

I made a mistake the other day. You are not working on quite the same basis in this type of corporation as we are with banking facilities where the ratios are different. Banking is a different bird. It’s a different bird because, while there are trust and agency relationships involved in banking too, specifically trust relationships, GIF certificates -- which have this particular element of trusteeship worked into them -- are so different that it has been found necessary to make very circumscribed ratios; to have them written precisely into the heart of the legislation.

I was almost inclined to read from page 117 of the Senate committee’s report as to precisely how this works with respect to the sums involved. And, well, for those who might be interested, I think it would be very valuable. It says:

“The effect of these ratios can perhaps best be illustrated by a numerical example. If we imagine a trust company starting off with $1 million in capital and surplus, the shareholders pay in $1 million in capital and contributed surplus. So, the initial balance sheet shows the company with assets, invested funds of $1 million. While on the liability side we have capital and surplus at $1 million.

“Then to start with, the company borrows up to its initial power, which is 12½ times. They would then accept $12.5 million from the public and its new balance sheet would show assets of $13.5 million: the $1 million it already has, plus the $12.5 million that it has borrowed. While on the liability side, we would have $12.5 in liabilities to the public and $1 million of capital and surplus.”

So such a company could suffer losses on its assets portfolio by way of mismanagement, bad investment, a run on the trust company, in the sense that withdrawals are made in such a way as to force the sale of assets below the market price or below what the price at least was fixed in the books of the corporation. The house of cards is falling apart. The estimated figures making up the 20 per cent; the value in terms of the basic capital is no longer there. Such a company could suffer losses in its assets portfolio, up to $1 million, and still be able to meet its full obligations to the public.

Now, the loss of $1 million out of a portfolio of $13.5 million will represent a loss of 7.8 per cent. So you might say that such a company has a safety margin, capital and surplus of 7.8 per cent of the asset portfolio. If that company receives approval to go up to 20 times, its balance sheet would show that on the assets side at $21 million -- the $1 million that is already there, plus the other $20 million that they can take in now -- and on the liability side $20 million of obligations to the public and $1 million in capital and assets. Such a company could suffer a loss in its assets portfolio of $1 million and still have enough to meet its obligation to the public. A loss of $1 million out of $21 million is about 4.8 per cent. So a company that goes to 20 times has a safety margin of 4.8 per cent.

I have dwelt on this to some extent because sometimes one talks about the multiple, that is, the guaranteed trust funds were so many times capital surplus, or someone talks about the safety margin of capital surplus.

Then the report goes on at a later point where he is describing the subordinate debentures. He says that that alters, because a certain portion -- a twenty-first or $238,000 in the example that he uses -- in terms of this particular kind of liability permits them to go up to a ratio of 25, which is $25 million in this example, and still retain the same basic security -- the 4.8 margin that would be a safeguard for the guaranteed investment funds.

Now, this is all very complicated, Mr. Chairman. It’s all very tricky stuff and it takes a certain amount of time to understand. A problem, as it was brought up by Senator Jacques Flynn was that there is no ceiling on the borrowing at all. He said there is no ceiling with regard to the ratio. He indicates that he himself is a director of a provincial trust corporation and it may be established at any rate, by regulations of the ministry. The chairman says, “You mean the borrowing?” And Flynn says, “The borrowing, yes.” And Mr. Humphreys comes in and says, “That is correct, Senator. There would be no statutory ceiling on the ratio.”

That being the case, I think the same is true about your legislation, that meeting the particular needs with respect to liquidity, with respect to the massive base of the investment portfolio that different trust corporations have, and to the sense of security the various types of trust corporations breed in the various people that invest in GIF certificates in such corporations, to meet the nature of the investment portfolio itself, as to how quickly it can be liquidated, the range and type of stock holdings that it has and its bond position, all these things would make some kind of discretion, not just to the superintendent of insurance -- bless his delightful heart; we had a great time in England together -- but coming up through the minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which I take to mean that some of your cabinet colleagues just might, on some remote occasion question you when you want to put that thing through cabinet.

In other words, they’d be sufficiently alive to know just how fundamentally important to the security life of trust corporations in this province such established ratio above the 20 per cent would be, and even in many instances to the 20 per cent. A flexibility has to be put into this picture on the one side of the fence, and the expansion of their money supply must be somehow accomplished on the other, in order to keep that mortgage market flowing.

If the life of trade in the mortgage market anywhere is the abundance of funds -- and at the present time demand far outstrips supply, and the artificial restrictions that have been placed on the corporations have delimited the supply: quite foolishly, in my opinion -- that being the case, then one has to be fundamentally in favour of the legislation and, to come back to the point at issue, of the support type of notes, if anybody is foolish enough to buy them.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, just before I deal with the observations offered by the member for Downsview and the member for Lakeshore, while sitting here listening I reflected on something I had said earlier. I think I said -- and I want to clarify it if I did -- that under the present Act the trust companies must invest 50 per cent of their guaranteed, funds in mortgages. That is not correct. They must invest 50 per cent of their guaranteed investment funds in approved trustee investments. I just want to make that clear.

As I indicated earlier, some 75 to 85 per cent of trust company investments today are in residential mortgages and commercial mortgages; mainly residential, as I understand it.

The member for Downsview was concerned about the exceeding of the limits. Each trust company can go to 12½ times as of right under the statute and there is no automatic approval to take them even up to the 20. In order to get to the 20 and have that approval given by the Lieutenant Governor in Council they must satisfy --

Mr. Singer: Start at four times.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Start at four times.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Four times for loan companies 12½ for trust. There is a difference between the two.

They don’t automatically get this on application; that certain documents are signed and forms filled in and they are automatically signed. Nor should they, and I don’t think anybody here is suggesting that. Because they have to satisfy the registrar that their capital and investment portfolio is such that they are within those safety criteria that the ministry has devised. The same thing would apply on the increase from 20 to 25 per cent. They would have to satisfy the ministry that certain conditions would be met; that the subordinated notes would not all fall due at the same time, that the unimpaired capital of the trust company would be such to meet the subordinated notes. These criteria would have to be met.

When you say that the bubble could be breaking, or that it could be getting too large, may I again reiterate that 75 to 85 per cent of the investments are in real estate mortgages. Therefore I say to you -- and I am not trying to be slick or offhanded about it -- that the investment portfolio of these trust companies would be as good as the stability of the real estate market and I think that’s something we cannot overlook. Now the banks are already working on a ratio of 30 -- and the member for Lakeshore is astute enough to recognize that there was some difference in our thinking last week when we discussed the principle of the bill.

The banks are already at 30 and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the banks are in any difficulty in this country today because of the very severe monitoring that is provided to them -- and properly so -- by the federal government and the Bank of Canada, which has the general responsibility I believe, of supervising the chartered banks of this country.

The member for Downsview mentioned that the select committee is looking into this very issue. This was touched on in our general discussion last week by the member for Lakeshore and by the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson), who is the chairman of that particular committee. If you will read Hansard, you will observe my comments; perhaps you already have.

I stressed to the House on at least two occasions that evening that this was no attempt by my ministry to usurp the very, very important function that that particular committee is performing at this particular time. I happen to have great sympathy for that committee and I happen to have great respect for the recommendations that have been made in the past. I am not identifying myself with them because I happen to have served on that committee, but I recognize the contribution that that committee has made in certain facets of our commercial life in this province.

However, the chairman of that committee in his capacity as a private member the other night did in his remarks, as I recall them, say, that perhaps it might be later on next spring before certain recommendations were made I am concerned that if that occurred and the House was not sitting at that time, or the legislative programme was such that it couldn’t be reached, we could well be looking into late next fall or mid-autumn before we could bring about the amendments that I propose to introduce now.

I have not discussed this with any member of the select committee -- I am not anticipating what your recommendations might be and I haven’t got that right; it would be presumptuous of me to think so. But I recognize a certain necessity -- I hate to use the word urgency -- for having this available to the trust companies of this province within the very near future.

Mr. Singer: Could you tell us the reasons for that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I will tell you the reasons for that: because some of them have deposits and so on right up to capacity and can put no further money out. Their alternative is to say: “We are refusing any further deposits. We are refusing to accept money for guaranteed investment certificate purposes because we are up to the 20 times -- our ratio -- and we can’t put any more out.”

You see, it’s not like buying shares. If people came in and bought stocks in the company that’s no problem -- and the member for Downsview recognizes this -- because then there’s 20 times or whatever might be available. But for one reason or another, and I am not dealing with that here today, they are not able to compete and therefore if they shut their doors to accepting deposits, I am confident that the public of this province will wonder just what’s going on. “What is the matter with this trust company that it won’t take my $5,000 or my $1,000 or my $100? It won’t even take it for deposit. Why won’t they do that? What’s the matter with the financial stability of this province?” And down the street the banks are taking up to 30 times. This, Mr. Chairman, just doesn’t make sense.

Assuming for a moment this House approved this legislation, and assuming for a moment that the trust companies went up to the 25 ratio, that by no stretch of the imagination is the end of the world, because they are using that money primarily for the mortgage market. It not only satisfies the requirements of the person who wants to borrow by way of mortgage, but it also assists those who have already invested in trust companies, by seeing their company grow, and a multitude of purposes would be served.

No one is going to get any increase, even over the 12½ per cent, without meeting the very, very careful criteria laid down prior to their making application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It’s very difficult.

I spoke to the president of a trust company the other day; I just happened to run into him at a social gathering. He said: “It’s extremely difficult when someone comes to us who has been a long-time depositor, an ideal customer, and says, I’m proposing to build a new home, I wouldn’t deal anywhere but with you and I’d like to borrow some money from you. They say, ‘I’m sorry. We can’t lend it to you.’” Yet he can go across the street to a chartered bank, or to a competitor trust company that hasn’t reached the 20 per cent ratio or is just below it, and he can obtain those funds.

It’s so these various requirements can be met that the legislation is brought forward to the House at this time. I feel -- and I put this to you very sincerely -- that it is discriminatory against the trust company industry in this province if we don’t afford them this type of thing when their competitors in the banking business are working at the 30 ratio factor.

I can assure this House that no one is going to get an increase approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or anyone else unless the very stringent criteria are met. I think we’re all really saying the same thing in a different way, that we’re genuinely concerned to protect the depositor, to protect the public, and we don’t want to see any failure of the trust industry.

I submit, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, that this is responsible legislation and that it is required because of the financial mood of the times. We are not trying to anticipate any report that the select committee which now is delving into matters pertaining to trust companies. We’re not trying to forecast what they’re going to say. Their recommendation may well be somewhat different; if it is, I can tell you, if I’m still minister, we will look at it very carefully, as we have other recommendations of that committee. But I submit that this legislation is responsible and it is required at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Yes, there are a few questions I’d like to ask regarding this, since it appears we’re dealing with the whole bill almost in one debate. The point that seems to be under discussion mainly is the extension of the borrowing limits of the trust and loan companies beyond 20 times the unimpaired capital reserves. We discussed this in the select committee at considerable length. First of all, when I read section 90 of the Act dealing with trust companies, by law they are limited to four times their unimpaired capital and reserves, and only at the discretion of and through the Lieutenant Governor in Council may the registrar then extend the limits up to a maximum of 20 times unimpaired capital and reserves.

Certainly it is common knowledge that many of the larger trust companies are bumping the ceilings and have been bumping the ceilings. But it has been admitted by them that the reason they are bumping their ceilings is because of the common stock component of their reserves and their capitalization. As I recall the discussion, as the common stocks were being devalued, for every $1 million of devaluation the trust companies were losing $20 million worth of borrowing power, with the result that the trust companies were in fact losing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of borrowing capacity in a short period of time and, in fact, had to send notices out to their branches across the province telling them that they could no longer take in deposits or give out loans because they had bumped the ceilings.

My understanding Mr. Chairman, is that this is a situation related to the depressed stock market at the present time. If these ceilings are extended and there is a resurgence in the stock market, which I’m sure many of you investors are hoping there is, what then will be the direct result on the expansion of these trust companies? Will some suddenly become overexpanded if the multiple is raised and they suddenly find their stock values coming back up to what one would consider normal values in relation to their present depressed features?

We must also consider what will be the effect of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. on these certificates and the guarantees which are made for deposits. As the deposits increase, of course, they will all be covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and I don’t think there has been any actual experience or payment out by the deposit insurance corporation for default of payment or anybody going belly up.

So there are two things here. We all like to think that every time you put money in a trust company or a bank it is covered, up to $20,000 presently, under the deposit insurance corporation as it was set up, I think, some 10 years ago. I just want to know if the registrar, in whom I have a great deal of faith, is satisfied that this has to be done on a temporary basis to give these companies room to work. If the financial base is suddenly expanded by a resurgent stock market, will there be overexpansion in some of these smaller companies which are now struggling to have room to work?

That is a concern, I think, of the committee. It is something that we had not resolved at the time. We were told of the problem, that many companies are bumping the ceiling. They said it is mainly due to a depressed stock market and the devaluation of their reserves, and I think there are other ways that they can raise money. I think some of them are trying it through the issue of preferred stock. Whether it is satisfactory or not I don’t know. But I hope the minister is conversant with or has studied all the implications of this. Just because the big boys of the trust companies say they have to have room to work, maybe there are other means that in the final analysis would result in more stability within the economy.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, that everyone in the province is very much concerned about the stability of the financial institutions. They themselves are much concerned about it, and they expressed concern to us in committee. They keep telling us that there should be some restrictions on credit. They say they know it is not politically palatable and that nobody could do it, but they say out there there is an abyss into which some day we might fall. They are hoping it will never happen -- we all hope it will never happen -- but I surely hope that this thing has the complete approval of and has been looked into well by the registrar and his financial assistants and is not just coming as a request from the industry itself.

Mr. Chairman: Before the minister replies, I assume that all sections up to 12 have carried?

Mr. Singer: What gave you that assumption?

Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak for a moment in reply to the questions raised by the member for Waterloo North.

Firstly, I am advised that the percentage of common stocks owned by the various trust companies right now is almost at an all-time low.

Mr. Good: Bonds, I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Good: When I referred to their equity in common stocks I should have been referring to their bond equity, which is a vital part of their reserves, and which is greatly depressed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can only give the hon. member the assurance that has been given me insofar as the diligence and responsibility demonstrated by my staff in the superintendent’s office, in the person of Mr. Grundy and the deputy superintendent, Mr. Thompson, both of whom are known to the member for Waterloo North, have been exercised in a very positive way in order to satisfy themselves that in fact a need exists. The whole matter really, in a nutshell, is that the trust companies, which have reached their limit right now, just find, for reasons I touched on earlier, that they cannot raise any additional equity to permit the release of additional funds. They can’t borrow from the public on their equity stock because of the depressed situation involving the stock market at the present time. If the market improves, they can increase their capital by issuing more stock and therefore they will not have to issue subordinate notes. This would be a most healthy condition.

May I point out that while the legislation will allow them, under certain conditions, to go to the 25 times, not all times companies have to or will. There may be those that make certain business judgements and will remain where they are; there may be some that are under the 20 now and will wait until they touch the 20 to see what the market requirements are. There may be those who want to go up to 25 but in practice perhaps will only go to 22. These are decisions that will have to be made internally by the directors of each individual trust company.

I am not taking this legislation lightly. As all members have pointed out, it is very significant and I think we should be very much aware of that. I think the debate the other night and here again today, in terms of those members of the House who haven’t had the opportunity perhaps to be identified with this particular select committee on company law, has given them the opportunity to appreciate it and to recognize that this is serious legislation.

Section 15 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on any other section in the bill? Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 152 reported.

Mr. Singer: You got away easily, didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I appreciate it. You are a very bright fellow -- and I know because you told me.

Mr. Stokes: And if you don’t believe it, just ask him.

Hon. Mr. White moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see these amendments being brought forward, particularly at a time that will regularize the matters of election that are going to be held across the province on Dec. 2. We are interested to note the matter of leave of absence which is being required concerning employees of municipalities or a local board in order to run for office in their area. It is strange to us, though, that this kind of requirement is not required of those who seek provincial office, in that the leave of absence provision ordinarily doesn’t come into effect.

The matter of regularizing the situation in Oxford county is something which results from the earlier Oxford bill and was apparently not considered at that time, so that too puts the whole matter in perspective.

We are interested in one point with respect to the matters raised in subsection 2, concerning those who propose to be candidates for office who require leave of absence without pay for a period. We are wondering just how the minister is going to develop this matter of leave, because the leave which is brought forward, as I understand it, is no longer than 30 days before nomination day. The leave has to be granted, but it would appear that there are going to be some persons who are running for office and who are at least going to be put into a rather awkward situation if, for any reason, that leave may be withheld.

It’s noted that this requirement for leave extends to employees of any council in the regional or metropolitan municipalities being a candidate for any council in that region or metro municipality. This would mean, of course, in our situation for example, that an employee of the region of Waterloo could not run to become an alderman in the city of Kitchener without such leave of absence, and, of course, the bill further provides, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that if such an employee is elected he will forthwith resign.

I think it should be noted that these various provisions are going to come into effect retroactively for candidates in the present elections which are now being contested, as I have noted, and that, hopefully, persons who are successful in seeking election are not going to be compromised by the failure of the statute.

As I recall, there was a commitment made that it would, of course, be retroactive and we’re pleased to see it at this time. We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of comments about the bill. Obviously, it’s welcome that the uncertainty which existed is going to be sorted out through the course of the bill, insofar as it relates to school board employees. I wonder, too, about the differences in treatment between people who work for a school board and run for another school board and people who work for one municipality and run for positions in other municipalities. As I recall, what the minister is bringing in is a situation where an employee of one lower-tier municipality cannot go and be a member of another municipality, whether or not he goes into the upper tier. We would have welcomed a situation in which political rights were guaranteed for employees of municipalities, but in fact that is not the case here, as far as I can see it. I’m open to clarification from the minister, but apart from allowing people who are employees of school boards to run, it seems to us that he could have gone far further in giving political rights to municipal employees who wish to run for office.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister Intergovernmental Affairs): This bill affects the government statement of several weeks ago, which in itself resulted from comments made by the solicitor for York region, in which he expressed the view that there was a deficiency in the existing legislation and that teachers were not able to run for municipal council.

The law officers of the Crown accepted that possibility, while some at least did hold to the original view that the legislation was in no way defective. At any rate, to be on the safe side, the government did make a statement a few weeks ago and this bill is the consequence of that decision. The intention of the bill is to remove any doubt about the right of employees of school boards to run for municipal council. At the same time, it does clarify one or two other sections of the Act, and certain of these provisions are made retroactive to January, 1973.

The hon. members have drawn a couple of matters to my attention. First of all, that a teacher running for municipal council would have to take leave, and a comparison was drawn between that and running for the provincial Legislature. I think a better analogy would be a provincial public servant running for the provincial Legislature, in which case the provision is identical. In other words, the provincial civil servant in these circumstances would have to take a leave before official nominating day and, if elected, would have to vacate his public service role.

So I think the comparison offered by the member for Kitchener is not valid, and that we have indeed provided for the same kind of constraint at the municipal level as has existed at the provincial level.

Insofar as a municipality withholding leave in certain circumstances is concerned, one can hardly envisage this being the case. I think it has not been a problem. If it were to become a problem then, of course, we would have to consider a further amendment.

The reason that the rules are somewhat different in the regions is because of the conviction, which I share, that the area municipalities in a region have certain coincident interests and, therefore, conflicts of interest can arise because of this coincidentality. So, if a number of municipalities are enjoined in a region, I think it would not be fitting for the employee of one municipality council to be on the council of a neighbouring area municipality. I think we are on firm ground there.

Now, insofar as the school boards in a region are concerned, this I must confess is not in this legislation; it is not part of my responsibility. I think it might be attended to by asking the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), during question period, why they haven’t got the same constraint as we have here in this Municipal Act. I’m quite prepared to deal with the reasoning in this Act, but I cannot speak for the Minister of Education’s legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought this was meant to be an integrated and co-ordinated government. I thought they talked to each other.

Hon. Mr. White: It must be a difficult policy.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading.

Agreed.

MOOSONEE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOARD ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 129, An Act to amend the Moosonee Development Area Board Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill would appear to be rather minor, but in fact it has a matter of principle that is important to us. We note that the number of members of the Moosonee Development Area Board are being increased from five to seven, but regrettably we do not see that these persons are being elected. We think the appointments to this board have been of value in the past, but in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is time now that the members of the board be elected by the people they serve.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That was something the Treasurer promised to look into.

Mr. Cassidy: It is an undemocratic government.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think this is a regrettable step -- not the matter of increasing the numbers because, surely, with an increased population, a broader group of persons should be canvassed and hopefully be representative on the board as it does its work. But it’s not simply the matter of the numbers. As a result, with regret we will vote against the bill, because we think that the persons who are serving in that area should be elected by their peers.

The member for Thunder Bay has commented that the hon. Treasurer was going to look into that matter, and I would appreciate hearing his comments before the vote is called.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill.

The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I would like to join in the comments of the speaker for the opposition, Mr. Speaker; specifically, that the expansion is obviously unacceptable. The fact that the government isn’t taking this opportunity to provide for elections to the Moosonee Development Area Board doesn’t make any sense to us at all.

I have to confess that I’ve never been to Moosonee. I’m not sure whether the minister has or not. I’m not even sure at what stage of development they are. They may not be ready at this stage to become a self-governing municipality. But it seems to me totally outrageous in the 1970s that there should not be at least a majority of elected people on this particular board. I think the minister should hang on his anti-democratic principles.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel compelled to get up and speak on behalf of the people of Moosonee with the implementation of this bill. I have had many, many experiences in the north since I have had the privilege of representing a riding in northern Ontario, inasmuch as I have had at least five and as many as seven improvement district boards to represent. Now I am not saying that some of them don’t work well; in fact I can think of one, which will remain nameless, where I have had only one difference of opinion, and that was with regard to the operation of snowmobiles and snowmobile bylaws within that particular municipality.

I think it’s inevitable that at some time they all will aspire to what I refer to as an open form of government. We have had several conversions, and the minister has two on his desk right now that he has promised to look into and bring in minor amendments to section 10, I believe it is, of the Municipal Act that will allow them to hold open elections and become an open municipality, where elected members are much more responsible to the electors and much more responsive to the electors.

I can readily understand that where a town springs up overnight, where you have few people who can identify and speak for the total community, where you have a community where there isn’t that kind of cohesiveness and where there isn’t that kind of expertise and that kind of sort of identifying with the community, then of necessity you would have to have a sort of trusteeship or board where people are appointed to look after local affairs, but I don’t see this happening in the case of Moosonee.

Moosonee is a very closely knit community. It’s a community that is somewhat isolated, with the nearest centre of population being well over 100 miles to the south, down at Cochrane. They do have a sense of identity, a real sense of community, a real sense of purpose. In the last four or five years, when this government has intervened and has set up a good educational system there, and as a result of efforts by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the Ministry of Health, in co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare at the federal level, I think it’s accurate to say that the people of Moosonee have reached the point in their history where they would like to have that kind of responsive and responsible government.

Unless there is some overriding consideration that I am not aware of, I think that the minister should give very, very serious consideration to allowing those people to participate and to establish to a much greater extent than is possible at the present time some sense of governing over their future. I happen to think that the days of improvement boards and appointees, by this ministry or any other ministry, for the affairs of a local community are long since gone.

I don’t know of any reason why the minister should feel inhibited in bringing in the proper legislation or at least just giving them the authority. Maybe they aren’t aware of the fact that a petition signed by 75 ratepayers is all that is required, and I’d like to bring to the attention of the minister that that kind of petition, and hearing held, is really all that’s required to seek erection into a township or some form of municipal organization that is much more open than the concept embodied in an appointed board or an improvement district board. I think if you allow these people to do that, a lot of the problems that are confronting you at the present time would just disappear and vanish into thin air.

People like to feel they have some degree of influence over their future and their own destiny. If you get them co-operating, and make them responsible for a lot of the things that the government has to see to with its various ministerial and agency structures at the present time, I think a lot of the problems that the people in Moosonee, and of necessity the treasurer’s people, face on a day-to-day basis, would vanish into thin air. There are very few communities, certainly of the age and maturity of a town like Moosonee, that couldn’t accept this responsibility. If they were made aware that it was possible for them to do so, I think they would jump at the opportunity.

I think not only would it help the people right in the community of Moosonee, but they have a real affinity with people up along the coast, at Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, and even over on the east side of James Bay, on the Quebec side, in an area like St. George and places like that. It would serve as sort of a model to those people so they too, at some time in the future, might take a pattern from it and accept a much larger degree of responsibility for their own future.

I don’t think that I am asking for anything unreasonable; I think the time has long since gone when this ministry, or any other ministry, should give an appointment to a board and say, “Okay, go to it. You are the trustees, just manage it as you see fit” -- except on the odd intervention from the ministry or the Ontario Municipal Board.

I think, in view of commitments made by the minister, expressing his displeasure in the past with appointed boards for municipal purposes, I would have hoped that he would have brought in that authority and embodied it right in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. member wish to speak? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: I am glad there is no objection to increasing the size of the board, which is in keeping with the wishes of the people concerned. There seems to be some small misunderstanding about the nature of these appointments.

I would like to deal with this in two sections. First of all, the additional two members of the board -- if the Legislature passes this bill -- are asked to be elected at a town meeting under the auspices of the board. This is a request which I have put to the board and I have no doubt they will accede.

The second phase has to do with practice in the past in keeping with my new request. It is perfectly true that I have appointed a number of people of the board. Those names came to me, however, as a result of an election in a town meeting. On not one single occasion have we departed from the order in which the nominees were elected by their peers in the town meeting in the community centre of Moosonee. More than that, the person getting the largest number of votes --

Mr. Stokes: That is giving them a little bit of democracy. That is what the Treasurer is doing.

Hon. Mr. White: No, just a minute, let’s not be too sure that this isn’t pretty good right now. More than that, the person polling the largest number of votes has, during my experience, always been named the chairman. Why is it then that we don’t go to a complete election?

There are two large racial groups more or less equally balanced and getting along well. I, myself, have been in Moosonee several times -- three or four times -- and was there earlier this year. I participated in a town meeting and heard the views from the citizens and from the trustee concerning the needs and priorities of Moosonee, as those needs and priorities affected the provincial expenditures. We have a good mixture of these races on the board. The reason that we have retained, to date, the power to make the appointments is for fear a town meeting might be overwhelmed by one of the two large groups, thereby electing five and now seven from one of the groups without adequate representation from the other group.

My officials, who are intimately informed about the sociology of the area and who know the personnel very well in a way that I do not, think that the matter should not be changed at the present time. That, coupled with the fact that I have no reason to think there is any enthusiasm for such a change, leads me to leave things as they are for the moment.

But let me reiterate, Mr. Speaker, there is an election by secret ballot in the town hall. In all of my experience, the people polling the largest number of votes have become members of the board and the person polling the largest number of votes has been appointed by me as chairman. If there is some enthusiasm in the area for a change in this practice, I am quite prepared to make such a change.

Mr. Stokes: Could I ask for a little bit of clarification? I wasn’t aware that this was going on in Moosonee, although I have participated in -- I haven’t presided over -- a similar situation in another area where there was an improvement district board, and now they have sought a change in the Act in order to provide for full and open elections. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that once they get on the board they are there at the whim of the minister? Nobody can say, “We are dissatisfied with the kind of representation we are getting.” This is presumably a lifetime appointment. It isn’t an exercise that they engage in every one or two years, as is the case with other open communities. Once they are there they need do no more than curry the minister’s favour, or the favour of the other members on the board.

Mr. Speaker: That is still part of the question, I presume?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. White: I really do believe they are appointed for a term, but I will have to double check that. I don’t think they are appointed ad infinitum. I think there is a periodic election, as I have described that election.

Mr. Stokes: Except there is nothing in the legislation to cover it.

Hon. Mr. White: Now I would like to double check and make sure that the appointments are for a term. The very fact that I have been called upon to make a number of such appointments is evidence that it is for a term.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire as to that detail, would it be possible for the minister to advise us how long he expects this sort of guided democracy to continue, or if he is unable to make any judgement in that matter, perhaps he could let us know that too?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, I am prepared to do it whenever the people there want me to do it. But there is a safeguard now against one of the two large groups completely dominating that board. It may be that this is their wish. I have no reason to think it isn’t.

Mr. Stokes: Did the people of Moose Factory get a vote too?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note this amendment to the bill, which is going to allow the purchase of municipal debentures where certain stadia are being constructed in municipalities of 100,000 or more in population.

Of course, the purchase of these debentures is subject to approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, in fact, the issuance of the debentures obviously requires approval by the Ontario Municipal Board in the first place. However, if those two steps are carried through, the large communities will have the ability to have their securities purchased in order to complete these projects.

I suppose that the major reason for this amendment we will eventually see within a mile or so of where we now are, but it could be that not only developments along the lakeshore perhaps, in the Toronto area, but in other communities, are anticipated and the financing of them is going to be at least assisted by the present government.

There are, of course, many moneys which come into the hands of the present government, either through the pension funds of the municipal employees, or the teachers, or the civil servants, or, of course, through the funds which are available through other sources, such as the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I would expect that these funds are going to be invested at what are presumably attractive terms of interest so that the benefits from them will not only assist those persons who have invested in pension funds but also will be useful to provide this kind of facility within the communities.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister as to why this 100,000-population figure was used and how he foresees other communities that may wish to establish this kind of development being able to deal with the project. Are other communities of less than 100,000 simply going to be told that they are not able to go into this kind of a project or are there going to be any exceptions planned, especially perhaps as newly developing areas might wish to use this kind of a facility as a spur to future growth?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this? I believe the hon. member for Ottawa Centre wants to make some comments. We’ll wait for him to get to his seat.

Mr. Cassidy: I was just involved in some actionary research, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for passing in front of the mace.

I must express concern about this Act and about this bill and the perversion of the purpose of the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. Act that is involved in the amendment which has been proposed before us today. That is really what it is, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. is a rather neglected and unknown body whose purposes are to provide a means of efficient debenturing for small municipalities in the province and to provide debenture support for essential projects by municipalities with a population of over 20,000. For that purpose is seems to me that it’s a very desirable body. If anything, it should probably be expanding its activities rather than reducing its activities in those two particular fields.

Perhaps I can read into the record what its purposes are. It can purchase from any municipality in Ontario with a population of less than 20,000 people debentures that are issued by that municipality for any municipal purpose. As the minister knows, this is to stop the kind of practice one has in Quebec where the little municipalities have to pay very high rates of interest, a percentage point, 1½ points or maybe two percentage points above the rates paid by the major municipalities in order to float their loans. It’s in order to provide reasonable kind of terms for loans for municipal purposes for the small municipalities.

The second object of the corporation at present is to purchase from any municipality with a population of 20,000 or more debentures that are issued by it for waterworks, water supply distribution systems, sewage and works for the incineration of garbage, refuse and waste and drainage works. These are pretty basic municipal services, Mr. Speaker. In fact it is notable that when they came down to define those things that were absolutely essential for municipalities of over 20,000 and for which they should have access to this Municipal Improvement Corp., they didn’t even include such basic elements of municipal housekeeping as streets, street reconstruction or sidewalks. The drafters of the Act originally, the legislators, said that water, sewage, garbage and drainage were such essential services for health and environmental quality that, where necessary, municipalities of over 20,000 should have access to the Municipal Improvement Corp. for those funds.

What happens now? We get talk by Mel Lastman, by Paul Godfrey, and various other people, about a domed stadium at inordinate cost up in Downsview or down on the Lakeshore or other places like that. Fortunately reason prevails and, fortunately, we are spared tin possibility here in Ontario of the $100 -- million investment in the kind of grandiose sports palace that has been built, for example, in New Orleans.

What we get instead, as the government strives to steer away from a really grandiose investment, is a commitment to the Toronto Argonaut football team which I believe is still owned by the Bassetts -- I am not sure -- that there will be a new stadium down there and then a commitment to people who want major league baseball in Toronto that the new stadium will be suited not just for football but also for a major league baseball team. We find that the Municipal Improvement Corp., which is funnelling pension and other types of government funds into some pretty necessary services for smaller municipalities, suddenly gets loaded with the responsibility for lending money for the Argonauts down at the CNE Stadium or for the Ottawa Rough Riders if the city of Ottawa happens to take advantage of this bill for the current expansion of Lansdowne Park in Ottawa.

It just seems to me that at a time when capital is short, at a time when there are some very pressing needs in our major cities, the pension funds and the other types of savings which are amassed by the province and the savings that go into the Province of Ontario Savings Bank should be meted out with a better sense of priority than one that says you put your money into sports stadiums.

From what I have heard, the people who are engaged in major league sports now are capable in certain instances of paying salaries of up to a quarter of a million dollars a year to their star athletes; very high kinds of salaries are being paid. The ticket prices being charged, I gather, are going up to $8, $9 and even $12 a game, which seems pretty high and obviously is related, among other things, to the salaries they are paying to athletes and to the profits that may be made to professional sport. It doesn’t sound like a sector of society that is grossly in need of a guaranteed loan system from the provincial government.

I would much rather see these funds -- whatever funds are involved with the CNE stadium or any other stadium -- dedicated in the field of sport to amateur sport, to facilities that were available to kids in Cabbagetown, in Dalhousie ward in Ottawa or in some of the smaller municipalities in the riding of the member for Thunder Bay. They are the people who are getting the short end of the stick in this particular game.

For, if we are putting priorities on the use of funds which come through Ontario teachers’ pension contributions, municipal employees’ pension contributions, provincial government employees’ pension contributions and other sources like that, what about housing? Are the Toronto Argonauts, the Ottawa Rough Riders and a new major league baseball team for Toronto really of more importance in the allocation of capital funds of the province than funds for housing in the province? Surely the answer has got to be no. Surely the answer has got to be that if funds are available, they should be put into an essential area like housing or like amateur sport, and not into professional profit-making sport, where very large sums are involved right now.

There’s a stadium down at the CNE right now which, to my knowledge, has proved quite satisfactory for grandstand shows, demolition derbies, professional football games and, God knows, it might even take an International League baseball team if such still existed. It is adequate, in other words, for most of the needs which are put on it right now.

The Argonauts are a profitable team. Money is poured into them year after year.

They never seem to win the Grey Cup for various reasons, but nevertheless they are clearly not a team that is short of money. In fact, they are probably one of only three or four teams in the Canadian Football League that are consistent profit-making teams, despite their win-and-loss record. Now, why on earth should we be giving a guarantee to the Argonauts when other priorities are not being respected?

I would like to ask the minister during the course of the debate whether he, unlike his officials, can give an answer to what is the current rate of interest being charged by the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. What terms and conditions are proposed to be given on any loans that are handed out by this corporation for the construction of stadia, initially whether any agreement has been reached with Chairman Godfrey or other people in the Metropolitan Toronto area for the CNE Stadium and, subsequently, what terms are proposed to be made available if they want to reconstruct Ivor Wynne Stadium or the stadium in London for a WFL or CFL entry or for the reconstruction and expansion of Lansdowne Park, which is currently under way?

I think that those facts should go on record before we vote on this particular bill, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I will just have to say that we can’t accept what the Treasurer is doing to the Municipal Improvement Corp. It’s a good body right now; it probably should be expanded in the things that it has been doing reasonably well. For God’s sake, keep it that way and don’t put it to the service of John Bassett and all his cronies. We will oppose the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: What an astonishing series of assertions that we are going to guarantee debts for the Argonauts!

This amendment to OMIC will simply enable the province to purchase municipal debentures if the municipality itself decided to erect a municipal stadium or alter an existing stadium. This would be done, no doubt, at the decision of the council and accepted by us.

Not only would it be a loan only and not a grant, not only would it be for a municipality only and not a private enterprise, but they would be paying something more than the Province of Ontario paid to its debenture holders. At the present time, loans to municipalities under 20,000 provided for by OMIC are at 10.5 per cent. When we went to market in New York seven weeks ago, on behalf of Hydro, we paid 10.25. Interest rates have decreased very substantially since that time, and I should think that if we went to market tomorrow it would be at 9.75 or thereabouts.

There are no agreements or arrangements as such with Chairman Godfrey or the mayor of Ottawa, although certainly the Premier (Mr. Davis), speaking for the government, made it clear that we would present a bill of this nature to the Legislature; and if the Metropolitan council wished to utilize this particular source of borrowed funds, then of course it can make application for that purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: So there are agreements, in other words, of the wink and nod kind of variety.

Hon. Mr. White: The same thing is true in Ottawa, where there’s a very real impulse toward having a better municipal stadium. There again, while no arrangements have been made, we would like to accommodate them by way of a loan on which interest would be paid.

Mr. Cassidy: There are those who say the impulse should not be encouraged.

Hon. Mr. White: In that all fun is anathema to the hon. member, in a way that doesn’t typify either the Legislature or the society, I am not sure that he represents the attitude of the citizenry of Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister gives them circuses but he won’t give them bread. The Treasurer of all circuses, that’s what he is.

Hon. Mr. White: At any rate, this is a new facility for the municipalities in this province and I do hope it will go through. Now, to confess my own biases, I hope somebody here in this town succeeds in getting a national league franchise.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Since obviously London won’t.

Hon. Mr. White: Not only have I been a baseball fan in years gone by, but I observe that other communities, like Montreal, which has a good team, have their names splashed all over the world. I think Toronto is entitled to that, too.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t disagree with him, but why should we agree with it?

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister read Norm Mailer on football? Go home and do that and then watch another game. I challenge him.

Mr. Speaker: In the meantime, the motion is for second reading of Bill 130.

Those in favour of Bill 130 being read the second time will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, before you call it 6 o’clock, I just wanted to inform the members of the House that there has been an agreement among the parties to rise and resume sitting at 8:30 p.m., rather than the usual 8 o’clock, at which time the seventh order, that is Bill 68, will be brought before the House for discussion and second reading.

Mr. Lewis: What are we going to do after that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: After that, if that is passed or disposed of by the House, we will revert to budget debate.

Mr. Breithaupt: If I might suggest, before adjournment, that since these next two bills might take all of a minute each, it might be convenient to the Treasurer to proceed with 131 and 154 and we could clear those items off the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed then that we return at 8:30? Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I don’t think that I can agree with the hon. member for Kitchener about Bill 131.

Mr. Speaker: I presume the minister has the message, and I have no control over that.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.