Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. member for Kitchener.

PROPOSED COTTAGE SUBDIVISION ON NAPPAN ISLAND

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment. Following the resolutions made by the township of Seymour, Percy, Rawdon, Alnwick, the town of Campbellford and the Lower Trent Conservation Authority concerning development on Nappan Island, is the minister concerned that the proposed development will be upsetting to the environment? And has he moved at all to discuss the matter with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) in order to stop such development from proceeding?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker -- what is the location of that development?

Mr. Breithaupt: Nappan Island.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He knows that development. He knows it well.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He’s got lots of lots on it.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, on any development today within the Province of Ontario we work very closely with the Minister of Housing to make sure there are no environmental problems. But there are times -- and I can’t give you specific details on this particular property, but certainly there are times when we have to say no to developments in certain areas because of certain environmental hazards that are involved. But certainly we are very much aware of every development that goes on.

Mr. Breithaupt: Further to that particular point, considering the fact that there is a bird sanctuary and a rather delicate environmental area immediately adjacent to this, does the minister not think that the plans for 250 cottages on Nappan Island and an additional 150 cottages on Hardy Island, which is immediately adjacent, would be upsetting to the environment and therefore should be reviewed?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, part VII of the Environmental Protection Act and various other regulations provide that no development can go ahead anywhere in this province without having proper environmental clearance and controls on it. Soil percolation, soil types, the rock strata and the aquifers -- all these matters are taken into consideration on any development, and if there is going to be any environmental pollution at all, we would certainly be against any particular development which would create that problem.

The hon. member probably sees in the paper on a daily basis that we are involved with environmental matters in various places regarding subdivisions, storm runoffs, septic systems and so on. So certainly, if there’s any particular area that would create an environmental problem, we would be on to it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HYDRO COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, with respect to hydro commissions.

We understand that the cabinet is discussing the matter of the takeover of hydro commissions by regional governments; and following certain problems that have arisen with respect to membership of those commissions in the Waterloo region, can the Premier advise when we might expect to have some policy concerning the membership on those commissions and whether, in fact, regional governments will take over that responsibility?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is being considered by cabinet. I can’t tell the hon. member any exact date but I think it will be quite shortly. I know of the member’s interest in the Waterloo area; there is also some interest in Peel, the city of Brampton, etc., so there are a lot of us who are anxious to see the guidelines and the proposals as to how we might resolve some of these situations. I expect the guidelines and suggestions will be coming forward very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for Scarborough West any questions?

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier.

Now that clearly there are unanswered questions about the Shouldice affair, does not the Premier think a public inquiry into the behaviour of that man and his fund-raising activities in the Sudbury basin -- as well as the other aspects in which he was involved in doing business on his own or with government, and indeed his relationship to the fund-raising process generally in the province within the Conservative Party -- does the Premier not now think that since parties and governments are inseparable that there should be an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I read the letters that the leader of the New Democratic Party tabled after he says he received them on Tuesday evening. They were photostatic copies. I must say when I first looked at them I was looking for signs of mildew to see where they have been for the last 14 months.

Mr. Lewis: They weren’t part of that cache.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They may not be. I don’t know which vault of the NDP they came from on Tuesday evening, or wherever they came from. I am very intrigued by that.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Premier should talk about the issue. He should talk about Shouldice, the thug.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It’s hurting, is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury East can call Mr. Shouldice a thug if he so desires --

Mr. Martel: He was. He took more people for a ride in the Sudbury area --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only review certain aspects of it, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

The story that appeared initially on Monday last referred to two or three aspects of the situation; one of them related to the suggestion about what I think could be called patronage in terms of selection of firms or individuals, not related to contract awards or what have you, but in those areas where government retains services, where there is some discretion.

As I read the Globe and Mail story, they checked a number of the individuals whose names must have appeared somewhere. In fact, one might almost think some of the names were contained in a letter that was tabled here yesterday; one might assume that, which might also then might lead one to assume that somebody had this material when that story was written. In fact, I understand some of the questions were being asked in Sudbury as of Friday of last week. And my understanding of the story was that that aspect of it was checked by the reporters from the Globe and Mail, and as I read it, there was no evidence whatsoever to substantiate anything being done on the basis of or on the recommendations or suggestions of Mr. Shouldice.

The main part of the whole innuendo and accusation, which was contained in the headlines of the Globe and Mail on Monday -- the story that was copyright with respect to the purchase of land in the Oakville area -- I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party there wasn’t a single thing tabled here yesterday that either referred to that or cast any further light on it. And I say that the file that has been tabled, the statements have been made, prove without any question there was no influence, there was no contribution, there was nothing improper done by the civil servants. Mr. Speaker, I do take exception to that, and I said it publicly on Monday night -- and I make no apology for it.

What that story implied was that there was a series of individuals in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, not just one man, -- you don’t plan a highway without the involvement of several people -- that these public servants were in some way surprised for the interest of a political party or an individual. Mr. Speaker, I reject that categorically. It just isn’t true. To me, it was a totally incredible story from that standpoint.

It has been demonstrated, I think without any question, there were no funds paid to the party. There were no funds offered to the party. There was no commission paid. There was nothing improper in the purchase.

I read the letters of yesterday. One thing I think they demonstrate very conclusively is that the particular man in question had very little influence with this government. You can talk about his vote. You can talk about some of the other things in it maybe, but I think it demonstrated conclusively that some of the suggestions made by that particular individual were not accepted by the government of this province.

I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that if there are some more letters in the vault, if he thinks that his caucus has some other things up their sleeve, if they want to persecute and see somebody hanged on the front lawn of Queen’s Park, I tell him the man has been prosecuted. He was prosecuted under a number of charges. He is in the process of having a hearing as it relates to his licence. Just how far does the member want to go in a democratic society? Just how far does he want to be involved in what I think is a very questionable approach to the political process here in the province?

I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker -- I say this to the leader of the New Democratic Party -- I was disappointed because while we have differed on many basic issues, and while we will debate policies here in this House, and while I disagree sometimes strenuously with some of the things that have been suggested by way of policy over the years, I have always expected that the leader of the New Democratic Party wasn’t going to resort to some of the things that have happened in the other party in the House, and the press.

I just can’t understand why he has become part of it. The only conclusion I can come to is that there are some members in his party and his caucus who feel some sense of guilt in that they were sitting on some of this material for 14 months. And as his own treasurer, Mr. Caplan, or whoever it was --

Mr. Lewis: Doctor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- Dr. Caplan -- I am sorry -- a very distinguished academic up at the Ontario Institute, observed himself that he had known of these letters; the party had known of these letters; they felt there was nothing of substance. And I say to the member today there is still nothing of substance.

I have no intention of having a royal commission. I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party I am disappointed at his involvement and his suggestion, as a result of the tabling of those letters yesterday, that this alters whatsoever the facts that nothing improper was done in what is the main allegation in the purchase of the land in Oakville from one Mr. Feldman. And I tell you --

Mr. Lewis: That is a complete diversion, a deliberate, defensive diversion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, it is not.

Mr. Lewis: It has nothing to do with the land, or the letters.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member doesn’t like to hear the truth. He doesn’t like to hear the truth.

Mr. Lewis: No, sir. The Premier mustn’t lecture to me about political morality.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The member should be lectured to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That is right. It’s turning to sawdust on the tongue of this government. The Premier shouldn’t lecture to me about it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. Does the Premier mean he doesn’t understand that a man like Shouldice, who so clearly debased the political process in this province, who had the political morals of an alley cat and whom the Premier was offended by, still eight months later had access to the corridors of power and dealt directly with his confidants and intimates, and he doesn’t see that this is worthy of some examination in terms of what it says about the political process in the province? I believe what the Premier said about his own view, but what does it say about the rest of the party’s apparatus? How does the Premier allow that to occur and how does he defend it publicly? Let him not burl charges at me but answer to his own behaviour.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer to my own behaviour. When this gentleman came in to see me, he made his observations. In spite of the suggestions made in today’s story, it was determined without any question that that particular individual was not to be involved in the financial and organizational aspects of the party.

Mr. Lewis: Who told him, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Who told him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say this, I cannot control what Mr. Shouldice writes or who he wants to see. He was not seeing people on the basis of financing or organization. He saw two or three ministers on the basis of recommendations as to who should be the regional chairman. Mr. Speaker, you’ve got to recall that Mr. Shouldice was not charged at this moment and he wasn’t under prosecution. While I know the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: That is also a diversion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- would like to see somebody’s blood, I guess, I can only say to him --

Mr. Lewis: Why did the Premier allow him even to consult with his people?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- there is just nothing --

Mr. Lewis: Why did the Premier allow him into his office? Why did he deal with such people?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It’s an accessible office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, he came into my office as a result of a request for an appointment.

Mr. Lewis: To discuss patronage. He put it in his letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To discuss the results in Sudbury.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on! Why doesn’t the Premier send him a letter and say, “Don’t ever correspond with me”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure! Just as the member has sent letters to people in his party. I know how many he has sent -- none.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I have not, happily, had the rotten apple brought forward yet, although I have no doubt it exists. Does the Premier think it’s appropriate that a man who has indicated to the Premier the way in which he does business on the part of the Conservative Party never be reprimanded; that he never be written to and that he never be called and told he’s debasing the political process? Is that the way the Progressive Conservative Party does business? Because if it is, that’s the way the government does business. The two are inseparable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not the way the government does business nor is it the way the Progressive Conservative Party does business.

Mr. Lewis: Well that is what --

Mr. Speaker: This is not the proper use of the question period, the way it is generally developing right now.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a supplementary question --

Mr. Speaker: If it is a question of information, the hon. member may ask it.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, was the Premier questioning the statement by the leader of the New Democratic Party that those letters came into the possession of this party and of the leader on Tuesday of this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning that. I am only saying that there was certain information contained in one of the letters that was tabled here yesterday that obviously, whether it came from one of those letters or elsewhere, was the basis of part of the Globe and Mail story on Monday. And I can only say --

Mr. Lewis: No, that’s not true.

Mr. Martel: That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well all right. Where else did the Globe and Mail get the information as to what lawyers to go to talk to and so on? It had to come from somewhere.

Mr. Renwick: It had nothing to do with --

Mr. Lewis: It was in the letter to the Premier.

Mr. Martel: The Premier should read the letter to himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It wasn’t in the letter to me.

Mr. Martel: It was. It certainly was.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not.

Mr. Martel: Look at the letters of Nov. 7 and 16.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want the Premier to answer this question for me then.

Mr. Mattel: He had better read his mail.

Mr. Lewis: When the Premier gets a letter from Ross Shouldice on Oct. 22, 1971 -- maybe he could just answer this for me -- saying that he wants to come into his office to discuss matters of political patronage, why does he see him? Why does he not reply to him to repudiate him? Why does he see him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there were two aspects to the letter. As I read the letter of Oct. 21, it didn’t refer to any specific firms or anything else.

Mr. Martel: Read the letter of Nov. 16.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I agreed to see Mr. Shouldice. I am interested in the welfare of this party. As a result of that meeting, I made my determinations, and the member knows what they were.

Mr. Martel: He listed everything to the Premier in the letter of Nov. 16. The Premier had better check his files again.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Why has the Premier maintained so consistently over the past two or three years that he has never known anything of the funding process within the Conservative Party, when, in this instance in any event, he was directly involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can explain that, and if the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party can’t understand this, I am sorry -- well, I am not sorry; that’s his problem.

I have maintained a very specific policy as it relates to the financing of the Progressive Conservative Party that there are no quid pro quos, there are no tickets, there are no nothings. People contribute to this party on the basis of believing what it is attempting to do in its philosophy, its approach, its ability, and that has been the sole basis for fund-raising as far as the party is concerned in this province.

Mr. Lewis: It is harder and harder for people to believe that, unless the Premier has an inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was the case and it is still the case, and the member knows it.

Mr. MacDonald: Political scientists have debunked that contention years ago.

Mr. Speaker: I think this matter has gone on long enough. Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the Premier hold an inquiry if that is the case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Into what?

Mr. Lewis: Into the behaviour of Kelly and Shouldice, that’s what. I don’t know the answers. Why doesn’t the Premier open it up? He may want to inquire into us at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, the matter has been pursued. The member for Downsview.

GOVERNMENT ACTION AGAINST DOW CHEMICAL

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.

Now that the Attorney General has had a little time to find his way around his new department, has he any new opinions, or any opinions, or can he bring us up to date on that other great 1971 decisive approach, the suing of the Dow Chemical Co? Can the minister tell us what the status of that action is or what it is likely to be?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I am advised, Mr. Speaker, by law officers -- because I anticipated the member for Downsview would be interested in the progress of this case -- that the discoveries or the examinations have been substantially completed and that the matter will be further reported on in a statement I intend to make in a very few weeks, in possibly three or four weeks, or right after the House reconvenes. Perhaps I could make a fatuous comment, but I won’t. I think we should press on with it. I share the member’s concern.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, could the Attorney General tell us how the discoveries could be substantially complete when, as I understand it, the question of the answers which are being sought from Mr. Hilton have not yet been determined by the court and the pleadings are not, in fact, completed? How then could the discoveries be complete?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am only passing on the information as I understand it. The counsel appearing for the province has been contacted, as I understand it, as recently as about a week ago by the deputy minister for an up to date report. I am concerned about it. I think we have got to get on with it. I don’t disagree with the member in any way, shape or form, and I will report back to the House or to the particular member as soon as I have the file before me. I have not perused the file; I am relying only on oral reports given to me by my staff.

Mr. Singer: By way of one very brief additional supplementary, could the minister, at his earliest convenience, bring us up to date on the amount of money that the Province of Ontario has paid to outside counsel and other assistants for the pursuance of this important lawsuit, which has been pending now for four years? Is it substantially over the $100,000 figure which we thought it reached about six months ago?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will have to take the question as notice. I just don’t know, but I will inquire for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the demonstration outside and the fact that many of the dump truck owners are now sitting in the gallery, I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date with respect to his activities in connection with the solution to their problem?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said to the hon. member on Monday of this week, I believe. One of the requests that has been made to me by the members of the dump truck association -- namely, the one here in Metropolitan Toronto -- was that there be an inquiry into the total operation of dump trucks in the province. I have agreed to such an inquiry and, as I said earlier this week, I am in the process now of attempting to appoint a competent, capable inquiry officer. I have made several contacts. One person whom I felt would have been most qualified has declined because of other activities and we are contacting others presently. The inquiry will be started just as soon as I can get a person who is qualified to handle this particular problem, and I can assure the hon. member and the members of this House, and the members of the association, that the inquiry will not be prolonged. It will be done quickly in order to come up with some answers to the problems that are facing the operators of the dump trucks.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A supplementary.

Mr. Young: Could I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. A supplementary first from the member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: We appreciate the fact that the inquiry will be held and will be short, but in the meantime there is desperation among these people. Is the minister planning to meet the executive of the association today to discuss what interim measures might be taken to save the situation while the inquiry is going on?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of meeting them at this stage. I see no value to a meeting. I’ve met with them several times, and I’ve met with their solicitor. We are fully cognizant of their problems, but there is no easy solution.

This industry is spread clear across this province, and there are varying opinions from various parts of the province. I cannot meet with each individual group and attempt to solve it for a particular area. There is a problem here in Metro that has been brought to me by one association; there are also problems in other parts of the province, including the northern and eastern parts, and I’m attempting to find a solution that I hope will be acceptable to all of them.

As I say, there is no value in me holding a meeting, and I’ve told that to the president of the association. I have met with him on a number of occasions. I know what the problems are, and I agree with him when he says that an inquiry would go a long way towards solving them; and this is what I want to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Essex-Kent has a supplementary.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has made a commitment to have an inquiry, would he now consider prohibiting the issuance of any more class F licences until the inquiry is over?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll consider that. I am not overly enthusiastic about that approach, but I’ll certainly consider it. I recognize that one of the problems is that there are so many of these licences around. Yes, I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, hasn’t the minister had any reports from the civil servants over the many months that these people have been pressing for some kind of action? Is there nothing in the reports he’s had that indicates he can’t take some immediate action to help the people who are suffering from this very grievous problem?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have had many discussions with the people in the civil service who are and have been intimately involved with this problem for a number of years. Quite frankly, we are not able to come up with what would be a solution even on an interim basis at this stage because, as I think the hon. member is well aware, it’s a very complex problem that is compounded by the fact that these particular operators have not been required to appear before the board to show cause that they should have their licence issued. They’ve just been issued to them upon request. This was done a number of years back when they were deregulated. Now they wish to be regulated again.

We do have some problems, and I’ve had many discussions with them. I appreciate this problem, and I hope I can be a party to having it solved. I do really believe an inquiry is the way to do it.

Mr. Singer: How long is it going to be before an inquiry is started?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would have liked to have started it yesterday, and I would have if I could have found a good qualified person. I don’t think you can just pick somebody out of the woods to handle this. They must have some knowledge of the problem. We have two or three people we’re contacting now, and as soon as I have an okay from someone who is qualified to do this, he will be appointed immediately and the inquiry will start immediately -- this afternoon if possible.

Mr. Young: It should have been done a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions from the Liberal Party? The member for York Centre.

LAND TRANSFER TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Revenue.

Does the minister agree with the select committee’s recommendation on foreign ownership of land that the purchase and acquisition of land, particularly in the “golden horseshoe” and other developing areas and recreational areas of the province, has reached serious levels and should be discouraged? If so, what guarantee of job opportunities does the government require in order to justify exemptions from the 20 per cent land transfer tax, which now amount to many millions of dollars, on acquisitions and purchases by foreign corporations?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I think that question in part, should be directed to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) inasmuch as he is the man with the input as to the growth pressures and what not in all of Ontario, not just here in Metropolitan Toronto and in the Toronto-centred region.

When it comes to exemptions under the Act for foreign corporations or others seeking to set up industry here, we do not have specifics. If they qualify by affidavits attached to their documents, then their documents would be registered, subject to the payment of the land transfer tax at the lesser rate rather than at the non-resident 20 per cent rate. I don’t have immediate access to the statistics either. What I did have over the first six or eight months of the use of the bill was access to that information, because they did not have the right to register short of paying the 20 per cent non-resident tax unless they could swear that they were not a non-resident. But now they can.

The members opposite were after us in the government to delineate, and with these guidelines laid out and the principles established, many of these transactions will now take place without any necessity for them to come to my ministry for an express clearance. Only the ones that do not qualify by the express exemptions set out in the Act -- and which the members of the Liberal Party endorsed when this bill was before the House in December -- many of those exemptions now clear the way for normal growth patterns.

But where they do not qualify, then those transactions would still come before my ministry for clearance. They would have to demonstrate that it was in the best interests of Ontario, that they were bringing new technology, and they would be developing new product lines that might very well enhance the economy of Ontario or the balance of payments of Canada in the foreign markets. It is that kind of thing, then, that would be one of the principles which again would give an exemption. And that kind of an exemption would be made public -- because, of course, it would be by an order in council.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Since the DREE legislation sets out definite areas where exemptions or assistance can be given to organizations that are setting up business in those areas, why is it not possible in this taxing statute to set out the areas so that we do not continue to encourage land acquisitions by foreigners in the areas where there is tremendous pressure on land purchases, and where we do want to cause land values to get down to more reasonable levels, instead of remaining at present-day inflated levels? Why doesn’t the minister adopt that type of principle, instead of this idea of blanket exemption regardless of where they acquire land?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, originally when the Treasurer and I were discussing these bills in the spring, I know that he and I felt that in the interests of good planning in this province that the non-resident tax was another and possibly very useful tool that could be used for steering the development of industry and commerce in areas in which further growth was desirable.

However, there was criticism from many quarters -- from some members opposite for that matter, too -- that this was an unfair application of a tax. That if we were going to use incentives for development of industry in depressed areas of the province, it should not be via a taxing statute which was applicable only to non-resident individuals or corporations, but rather that we should use incentives under the aegis of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in which ministry there is the expertise to determine the extent, if at all, to which some kind of assistance should be granted.

So, rather than use the taxing statute in a rather heavy-handed and perhaps clumsy fashion, it was felt by my colleagues and me that rather than use it for the purpose of exemptions or non-exemptions, and as a tool to move industry into depressed areas, we would not apply it in that fashion. Rather, we would leave that kind of thing to the expertise of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, from whom we were seeking advice in the first instances anyway.

When these questions came up and we were looking at proposed developments in eastern Ontario, we would go to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and seek his advice as to whether that was or was not a desirable activity in that particular instance.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Deacon: The ministry has obviously abandoned the principle of trying to discourage foreign ownership of land in this way. Why does the ministry not just forget the tax completely instead of continuing this present farce?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, obviously that was only one way in which the tax would be applicable. There are many other facets of that tax that make it a highly desirable tax to this day.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUTO INDUSTRY

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the high unemployment levels in the automobile industry, has the minister decided to withhold overtime work permits and to reduce the work week to 40 hours and the work day to eight hours?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to the matter of overtime permits; but the answer to the other is no.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Has the minister discussed this matter with the officials of the UAW?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There has been no recent discussions. I have had discussions from time to time with members of the UAW, Mr. Speaker. I don’t recall any recent discussions that I have had specifically on this matter. When we have these meetings we cover a wide range of subjects. I would say again that the answer to the last part is no. I can’t recall that we have had any discussions. I’ve had representations made by certain unions that we should do this but I can’t recall any recent discussions.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the answer to a question.

GAS RATE INCREASE

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) asked a series of questions regarding rate increases for natural gas. Although he didn’t name the company involved, I am assuming that the member was referring to Union Gas Ltd., a gas distributor in the southwestern part of Ontario, and to a recent decision by the Ontario Energy Board.

On Dec. 24, 1974, the board approved, on an interim basis and subject to adjustment, certain rate increases for Union Gas with respect to all meter readings or estimates made on or after Jan. 1 of this year. In the case of certain of the company’s customers the rate increase provisionally applied to the gas consumed in the first two weeks of December. The unfairness of this was recognized by the board and will be dealt with -- in fact, it is being dealt with by the board -- when its final order will be made after the hearings which resumed on Jan. 20 of this year.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, a copy of this decision was sent by the chairman of the Energy Board to the hon. Leader of the Opposition as well as to the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson) who had inquired earlier. In effect, Mr. Speaker, although the board was satisfied that Union Gas needed rate relief on an interim basis, it decided to require Union Gas to develop a mechanism for getting all of their customers the benefit of the lower cost gas which had been purchased in the summer and held in inventory until it was completely consumed by mid- December, 1974, when the more expensive gas was supplied. If the rate increase had applied on sales of that lower cost gas the company would, in effect, be re-pricing gas on the shelf. The board was obviously concerned that this should not happen and that a way had to be found to pro-rate the cost of the cheaper gas used up to mid-December and the more expensive gas used thereafter.

This pro-rating problem apparently arose out of the fact that Union had not thought it necessary to develop a system for pro-rating or adjusting the bills around the mid-December date to cover customers whose billing period started before the date and ended after that date. The company stated that three months would be required to develop the system. The board was satisfied that to delay a rate increase for this period of time would impair the company’s ability to provide service to its customers. However, the board insisted that a pro-rating system was necessary to protect Union’s customers and it has advised the company to that affect.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

PORT COLBORNE TUNNEL

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister indicate to the House what progress the ministry has made in bringing about an early decision on the construction of a vehicle and pedestrian tunnel in the city of Port Colborne and is the request for this project before the cabinet for approval of construction funds?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the situation that was created as a result of the bridge being knocked down by the lake freighter. The member has me confused a bit here because I dealt with something this morning.

Mr. Haggerty: In the city of Port Colborne, not the village of Port Robinson.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry that I can’t give the hon. member a definite answer at this time. We have been considering that in conjunction with this other unfortunate incident. Perhaps I can get some of the information out of the file and send it to him for his information.

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

DEATHS IN THUNDER BAY JAILS

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General.

Has the Solicitor General been made aware of the three recent deaths in Thunder Bay jails during the past month or so and, particularly, has he received the report from the coroner’s inquest to the suicide by hanging of Vernon Nokonogis in the Thunder Bay district jail? Is he willing to order a re-opening of the inquest in view of the fact that one of the prisoners who felt he had relevant evidence asked to testify at the inquest and was apparently refused and, further, that Mr. Nokonogis himself had apparently asked for psychiatric help and was ignored?

Secondly, with regard to the two deaths in the police lockup in the Port Arthur ward Thunder Bay city jail, is the Solicitor General aware that grand jury reports over the past several years have consistently condemned that as a lockup unfit for prisoners and that no action was taken?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Yes, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member’s last question, I am aware of the grand jury reports. It is a matter of replacing that rather ancient facility. I am also aware of the deaths. I am not aware that the coroner’s verdict is available on the inquest. I will check into that. As soon as they are available I will study them, and report back to the hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is making the investigation, is he aware that public reports in Thunder Bay indicate that the inquest found no blame attached, but since then additional evidence has apparently come forward that might be relevant?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In a circumstance such as that, Mr. Speaker, it is possible to reopen the inquest.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy.

Given the fact that the former Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) announced in July 1974, that approval of the southern 500 kw transmission corridor between Bruce and Georgetown via Kitchener was being withheld pending review of the long-range plan for Ontario Hydro; and given the fact that on Jan. 16, 1975, the Globe and Mail reported a statement by the new chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr. Robert Taylor, announcing that blueprints outlining the expansion of North America’s second largest electrical utility will stay as they are; and given the fact that Hydro itself has said that it would be impossible to conduct a review impartially on this matter, would the minister consider appointing Dr. Solandt, or some other person of similar capacity and experience, to conduct an independent study of this particular corridor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that under consideration and as quickly as possible give the member an answer. I should say too that I would hope, in the very near future that either myself or the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development will announce the full terms of reference for the long-range plan review and the names of the people involved with it. But I will take that under consideration, yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree that it’s impossible for Hydro or any body of that nature to conduct a review of its own action and have it objective? The review tends to reinforce the original decision.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not so sure that that’s the case, Mr. Speaker. I have great confidence in both the chairman and the president of Hydro. I don’t know that we can answer the question today as to the member’s particular problem. I will take under consideration whether it goes into long-range review or whether it goes into a separate local review.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Since this government has already been embarrassed by the plunging ahead with the $140 million development at the north end of this city without proper review -- an impartial review -- and now is causing the government some embarrassment in the instance of the Spadina Expressway, in view of the fact that this corridor down through the --

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the member ask the question?

Mr. Deacon: I shall ask a question in due course. It’s just that it’s a little difficult sometimes to ask a question with those members shouting away there.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The members over there are always complaining about the question period -- they want to make speeches.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Is this supplementary to the original question? It hasn’t been put yet.

Mr. Deacon: In view of the fact that this new transmission corridor down through Limehouse is going to involve an expenditure of $150 million and that, in fact, that corridor may be completely unnecessary when the long-range review is done, would the minister hold up any further action by Hydro in the acquisition of those rights-of-way until the review is complete?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

ALLEGED STATEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour. I would ask the minister how he reacts to a statement made in Guelph on Wednesday last when his colleague from Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), in responding to a question from the audience, said that the present dilemma in labour relations in Ontario was caused because the present Minister of Labour was gutless, and went on to identify him by name?

Mr. Haggerty: Can we have a side profile here?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I react with anger, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: What is the minister going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

EXTENSION OF GAINS LEGISLATION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, if I can get his attention.

Is the minister considering any amendments to the GAINS legislation and/or regulations so that when an individual is completely disabled and certified as disabled by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that individual’s spouse would be entitled to the same GAINS consideration as is given to a resident of the Province of Ontario who qualifies for GAINS solely by residency rather than by disability?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am not giving active consideration to that at the moment. That does not mean that we should not.

The whole GAINS programme is under constant review by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and by my own ministry to determine the way to pay out the moneys that are available through the various funds of this province. We recently increased the amount to a total of $2,766 a year for an individual, or twice that for a married couple. There are other plans doubtlessly being studied in the various ministries.

I have noted the member’s question, and I will ask my staff to look into this -- for one thing, we would have to analyse the degree of cost involved -- to see if this is something that might be considered by the Treasurer When he is looking at his next budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the cases I am bringing to his attention are those where an individual is paralysed or disabled to the extent that the individual’s spouse must spend full time at home taking care of the individual and, as a result, only qualifies for social service benefits which are nowhere equivalent to the GAINS benefits that the spouse might obtain?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not really conversant with that end of things. I think that would fall more directly under the administration of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. But I will speak to my colleague on that point and see whether it is appropriate that some assistance might be extended in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that the financing of some of the universities in the province is becoming critical, and indeed there is a danger of the quality of education at the post-secondary level deteriorating in Ontario, would the minister consider a review of the financing of the post-secondary institutions in order that they can operate without deficit financing?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I can add anything to what I have said in this House about the formula funding for the post-secondary institutions.

Mr. Laughren: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Just what does the minister see as the solution for some of the universities that are faced with very serious financial problems? Indeed, the people who are going to be hurt the most are people like the students on a part-time basis. There is a deterioration in the level of the library services being delivered in the institutions. Does the minister see no solution for them? What do we do with the university that has a $4.5-million deficit or, as in the case of Ottawa university, a $2.5-million deficit? What is the solution for them? The government is not even backing their loans.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, again I will be repeating myself. I have indicated that I expect there may well be deficits of a temporary nature -- one or two years -- for some of the institutions. They have had this before and they have solved their problems. I have also said that -- I think it was two years ago

-- they anticipated at the beginning of their fiscal year a total $14.5-million deficit. When the smoke cleared away, it was just a shade over $1 million.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. J. A. Taylor from the administration of justice committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

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

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

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

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the standing social development committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for its consideration of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table answers to questions 23, 27, 31, 33, 35 and 36 currently on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

House in committee on Bill 176, An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 176, An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario. Are there any comments or questions on section 1 of the bill?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Chairman, just before we start, I might mention to the committee that I have several amendments, not of a major nature, that I’ll be proposing as we go through. The first one deals with clause h of section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): As a prelude to my remarks on various sections of this bill, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say there is a relatively active organization in Huron county which is affiliated with the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Although this organization was given virtually no time to study the bill, it did have a chance to peruse a brief submitted by Heritage Canada and specifically asked me to support the concerns of Heritage Canada when the bill came in for second reading. Little did Heritage Canada know that the bill had received second reading, but fortunately the bill was sent into committee so that members would have a chance to make some comments, having been given very little opportunity to study the bill after its introduction into the Legislature.

In connection with section 1, if I recall correctly the remarks made during second reading, Mr. Chairman, I believe the question was asked by one of the members about the definition of “heritage,” which is not defined in the bill. The minister’s answer was that his dictionary said “heritage” was what is or may be inherited, and in a simple form it is history. This answer, of course, does not satisfy the concerns of those interested in conserving, protecting and preserving the heritage of Ontario.

In terms used by Heritage Canada, by dictionary meaning, by common usage and by Ontario government interpretation, “heritage” is a very broad term indeed. For example, the government of Ontario officially used the term “Heritage Ontario” for a major conference, apparently devoted mainly to the cultural heritage of ethnic groups. Does the government of Ontario intend that the present Act be so broad as to encompass such uses of the word “heritage” as the government has already employed, or is the intention of the legislation to refer more particularly to real estate, works of art and other personal property? Does “heritage,” as used in this Act, include also natural or designed landscape which may be found in the holdings of conservation authorities? These questions would appear relevant to the role of the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment? The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): I, too, share the consternation of Heritage Canada about the whole question of what heritage is. I think I shall wait until we get to section 10 to question the minister more specifically on what he means about heritage; and also when he talks about funding, whether he is talking about historical events as well as historical sites and buildings and so forth.

I think there is a feeling by many people in the Province of Ontario that the legislation is somewhat fuzzy. In some cases it gives responsibility to the municipalities that perhaps the province itself should be assuming. I shall wait until we get to section 10 to deal with it specifically.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment?

Mr. Riddell: Are we up to section 7 now, or are you on section 1?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope we are still on section 1, because I have an amendment.

But just to reply to the comments of the hon. member for Huron; I would remind him that actually we sent a copy of the bill when it was first produced to Heritage Canada and asked for their comments.

The hon. member said the word heritage was not defined, but it was not defined specifically because it is a very broad term. I think section 7, which sets out the objects of the foundation, and other sections throughout the bill, indicate what we consider are the priorities at this time.

However, since this is a new kind of an operation, we hope to be able to keep it fairly broad in its activities and not to restrict it. We are involved with the present heritage foundation in the acquisition of land, for instance, through donations. This, I would assume, would continue.

However, we don’t propose the heritage foundation acquire land for park purposes in competition with the Ministry of Natural Resources, for instance, and the conservation authorities in municipalities.

I think we will find, as the operation proceeds, that they may broaden their field of activities. I would not like to see us at this point attempt to define a word which has a very broad meaning.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause h of section 1 of the bill be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

(h) “Minister means the Minister of Culture and Recreation.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 1 of the bill approved?

Mr. Laughren: Are you talking about part 1?

Mr. Chairman: That’s section 2 isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Section 1 is just the definition.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any questions or comments? Any comments or amendments on any section of the bill up to section 7?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I have some comments I would like to make on section 5 of the bill.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the section explicitly sets out the composition of the board of directors as being not fewer than 21 persons. May I suggest to the minister that in the selection of the 21 people, he make it a geographical selection so that all parts of the province can be represented. Likewise, that he consider the contribution of the native peoples to the province so that at least there is some native representation.

In addition, I would suggest to him that he consider the ethnic composition of the province so that the ethnic community is not forgotten. They have also made a substantial contribution to the early development of the Province of Ontario. They should have some representative or representation on the board of directors so that there can be an ethnic overview of any recommendations made by the board of directors to the foundation.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I would also speak to that particular point as raised by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

I presume that the only way we could have, perhaps, a completely satisfactory board in this circumstance would be to have some 7.5 million people as members of it. However, it does seem that we are attempting here to develop a new approach. If it is to be successful, then the foundation is going to have to be as broadly based as the member for Windsor-Walkerville has suggested.

There are, of course, considerations of distance and location that might create a bit of a problem at times; but with the means of communication we have, there should be no difficulty in getting the kind of diversity that would be useful. Of course, there must be an input from the native peoples of the province, and also from the other particular groups of European and other ethnic backgrounds that have now developed Ontario to the province which it is.

I hope the minister will be able to base the membership of the foundation as broadly as possible, because I think that would be the best way to get this foundation meaningfully involved in all the streams of heritage that make up our province.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt -- which section?

Mr. Laughren: Section 5.

Mr. Chairman: Section 5?

Mr. Laughren: I’m concerned about the makeup of the board of directors to 21 persons, because I’ve seen in the past what happens with government appointments to such boards.

I don’t know whether you could write it into the legislation or not, but I would hope that there be regional representation on the board. I think most of us would agree that at the present time the cultural amenities of the Province of Ontario tend to be concentrated in the southern part of the province, and indeed in Metropolitan Toronto. Only by making sure there is strong regional representation we will be able to disperse our cultural assets across the province.

I look at things like the Royal Ontario Museum and the Art Gallery, and so forth, and I see everybody in the Province of Ontario paying for them with only a relatively small proportion of the province, geographically speaking, benefitting from it. It seems to me that only with very strong regional representation -- and I don’t mean Art Grout -- will we have the kind of support needed, for northern Ontario in particular, on such a board.

The other aspect, of course, is the old question is of how many women you intend to appoint on the board. I hope that without getting into the whole quota system, you will ensure there is adequate representation of women on this board.

I wish to state as strongly as I know how to encourage you to make sure there is not just token representation from northern Ontario. Perhaps there may even be disproportionate representation from the north, because only in that way will the needs of the north be brought to bear and have sufficient weight on the board to really do something.

That is one of my major concerns about this whole bill. I see real dangers of most of the benefits that accrue from the creation of this and the funds that are to be provided once again being channeled into southern Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: Any other member?

Mr. Breithaupt: I have just one comment while we we’re on this section, Mr. Chairman. We note under subsection 4 that a chairman is to be appointed and it is understood that the former member for Carleton East, Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, is the chairman of the foundation. I’m wondering if the minister can advise us what the remuneration will be to Mr. Lawrence and also whether there will be any remuneration to the directors or will that be a matter for which expenses will be paid without any particular fixed remuneration?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as far as the makeup of the board is concerned I’m sure that the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), who will be actually submitting the recommendations, will take into consideration, and I’m sure he would have already considered, the comments that have been made in the last few moments.

I would remind the hon. members that on second reading, I believe, I indicated the overall board was going to be broken up into four committees covering specialized sections of the work of the foundation. The archeological field, the historical plaque and history field, the building end and the administration of the funds.

I think we will be looking for people from all around the province; of both sexes and of a variety of backgrounds, people from those categories who have some knowledge or particular interest in the fields I’ve mentioned. It will not be an easy task to get the kind of representation which would be ideal. As the hon. member for Kitchener said, if we had 7.5 million people on the board we might be able to accomplish that, but might be a little unwieldy.

Mr. Laughren: You could ask Shouldice for his recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That gets to the second question the member just asked. I sometimes think it would be a great help if we had a panel of bisexual trilingual itinerants of a multiracial background to pick from, because in this ministry we have a great many boards. I can tell the hon. members that it is not always easy to find the kind of area, age, socioeconomic male and female representation you want; but we keep it to two sexes, which helps.

Mr. Laughren: Your predecessor had a suggestion when I was making the plea for more labour and more women representatives on certain boards -- I think it was in Colleges and Universities -- his answer was to find a woman in labour.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I was going to say that although that might conflict with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and his family planning programme.

On the manner of remuneration, I would assume the members will be paid a per diem and their expenses, as members of the Archaeological Historic Sites Board and the Heritage Foundation now are. As far as the chairman’s remuneration is concerned, I really can’t say. I would assume it would start on a per diem basis. Whether it turns out that the work of the foundation is such that it be a fulltime task, I can’t predict at this point in time.

Mr. Laughren: Hasn’t he already been appointed?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If that were the case, some sort of an annual sum, I imagine, would be established by cabinet on the recommendation of the Management Board.

Mr. Laughren: Is he not already performing duties for the government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Lawrence?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: He is presently the chairman of the Heritage Foundation. It is anticipated he will be chairman of the new body that is being set up in this Legislature.

Mr. Laughren: Is he on salary now?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am pretty sure he gets his expenses. I’m not sure about per diem or not. I know he wasn’t when he was a member.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of words on section 5. The Ontario Heritage Foundation is continued as a body corporate. I have found that when buildings and facilities are put up, at 100 per cent cost to the public purse by the Province of Ontario, and then when title is transferred to this corporation, which in fact has a private charter, these people who get to be chairmen of these boards -- and without fail I have seen this reaction from these people -- think that because they have been appointed to this particular board, and are on the board of directors of this particular foundation, and because they have a private charter, they are the owners of the building and that I, as a citizen of Ontario, can only stand out in the snowbank and look in the window without having any input. This happens very often, and particularly so in the case of administration of our hospitals.

The Province of Ontario sinks millions of dollars of public funding into building a facility; and then the hospital board of governors gets a private charter, and when a person such as myself tries to ask questions, intervene or say anything about the administration of the hospital -- and I’m thinking now of a particularly abusive and repulsive chairman of a hospital in the city of Sudbury; about an $8 million edifice there, the new Laurentian Hospital -- this particular man just waves his charter and says: “You’ve got nothing to say. I have a private charter and I’m the chairman of the board.”

He wouldn’t recognize that I, as a taxpayer and a citizen of Ontario, was also a shareholder. Even though I hadn’t bought a $10 share in his Mickey Mouse corporation I am a shareholder through the payment of taxes into the consolidated revenue fund. Here was a building constructed 100 per cent with public funding and I, as a taxpayer and a contributor to this particular investment, had nothing to say about it.

I’m thinking ahead into the next section, wherein you say that the foundation shall receive property, deeds and titles in right of the Province of Ontario. I don’t object to the foundation or a board of governors or any body managing a facility on behalf of the Province of Ontario, but I do object to title to properties bought by the citizens of Ontario being put at the disposal of these small groups of people who think at that point in time that because they have a charter and because they have deed, they therefore own this facility.

There is a lot of dissension around the province about this. I have felt it strongly and I have recited one particular instance where these people with these private charters just seem to forget that they are servants of the public. I think what should happen is that the title deed and ownership to any property or facility should be held by the minister or by the government of Ontario, and that the management of that facility could be transferred to the foundation if necessary.

We have such arrangements. We have such institutions. I know of one in my city wherein this is how it functions. The Sudbury-Algoma Sanatorium is owned and title held by the Province of Ontario, but there is a board of management, a committee or a board, which manages the facility and it works beautifully. They don’t get the idea, with their private charters and their deeds and their titles, that they are the owners. The board at the Sudbury-Algoma Sanatorium knows exactly where they are; they are only the managers of this facility on behalf of the Province of Ontario.

Why is it necessary to transfer title and deed to a corporate body which is one arm’s length removed from this Legislature? We have very little control then, as legislators, over the activities of this foundation because it is a body corporate and because it has deed and title.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just remind the committee that the existing foundation -- I’m afraid I haven’t got the financial statement -- but I think its assets are something in the order of $4.5 million or $5 million; all of which, with the exception of about half a million, has been donated to it by the public. There is about half a million dollars worth of tax money in the foundation at the moment. In the current estimates of my ministry, there is a further $1 million for the capital fund of the foundation, which is, of course, all taxpayers’ money. But I don’t think that the concerns expressed by the hon. member in relation to the general field would apply to the foundation, since it is a Crown agency. I would refer him to section 10(2), which says:

“Notwithstanding subsection 1, where in his opinion it is necessary in order to ensure the carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Act, the minister may exercise the powers of the foundation under subsection 1.”

But, in fact, this Crown agency will be responsible to this Legislature through the minister to whom it reports, which will be the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Therefore, the concerns he has expressed will not apply to this kind of an operation.

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, we expect that there will be continued donations to the foundation; that is why the fund is being continued. There have been gifts made to the Crown in right of Ontario through the foundation in terms of land, buildings and money specifically to look after the restoration and/or maintenance of structures, and we anticipate this will continue.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, what the minister says is true. There are very many other arrangements in other ministries where the minister reports to this House on behalf of a particular Crown agency. But almost without fail, whenever we lodge a complaint or make something known to the minister, he will say: “I don’t want to interfere with local autonomy.”

This goes on almost every day of the week in regard to our hospitals. The minister says: “We have a board of governors. They are responsible. I don’t want to interfere with their autonomy.”

I can see the same thing happening as far as this is concerned. We are going to come to the minister with a complaint and he is going to say: “I don’t want to upset the autonomy of the Ontario Heritage Foundation because they are responsible people. Go and talk to them.” Well, there are already 320 boards and commissions and agencies for us to go and talk to; in fact, we can’t find most of them. I would rather have more direct control from this Legislature over the ownership and activities of any of these facilities.

It is implied in the legislation, and I believe it to be true, that there is going to be a more rapid increase in spending on the acquisition of historical sites by the Province of Ontario. I think it is envisaged in another piece of legislation that came into this House that there is going to be more rapid funding and larger funding from the Province of Ontario, and yet we are going to lose control. We as legislators are going to be transferring this facility and control one arm’s-length further from this legislative floor.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions prior to section 7?

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Before I comment on section 7, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I might have been mistaken in suggesting that Heritage Canada had minimum opportunity to study and comment on the bill. Although having read their brief, I was interested to note that they stated:

“Heritage Canada, like other conservation groups, was given to understand that there would be opportunities to present views after the legislation was introduced into the Legislature. In these circumstances Heritage Canada must express disappointment at the decision of the government of Ontario to provide only minimum opportunity for conservationalists to comment. It hopes this decision will be changed.”

Perhaps I was getting my understanding from a letter I received from the secretary of the 1-luron branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, wherein she states:

“Bill 176, the Ontario Heritage Act, which was introduced just before Christmas, is of great concern to our organization. We have had no opportunity to study it but, according to the brief of Heritage Canada, of which I am enclosing a copy for you, it is not an ideal piece of legislation to be saddled with for years to come.”

I am sure they don’t mean that they don’t think there is a really good intent behind this bill, but that perhaps there should be amendments, which you have indicated will be coming in, that should be introduced if this bill is going to have a complete meaning.

As far as section 7 is concerned -- and again I am expressing the concerns of Heritage Canada -- section 7 provides that the foundation advise and make recommendations on any matter relating to the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. Since neither here nor in the interpretation section of the bill is there any limitation on heritage, one must wonder whether such a broad objective might dilute the effectiveness of the foundation in dealing with the conservation of real and personal property.

From a reading of the legislation, an Ontario citizen might reasonably conclude that he should address himself to the Ontario Heritage Foundation on such questions as music, the dance, theatre, literature or the role of ethnic minorities and Indian culture. This section could imply for the foundation a role in all provincial museums. Heritage Canada submits that the effectiveness of the Ontario Heritage Foundation might be enhanced if its objectives were more precisely stated and limited.

In section 9, the matters upon which the foundation may advise the minister are set forth in a more limited way than they are in section 7. Is there any reason for the inconsistency between the two sections? The reason that I am expressing these concerns, Mr. Chairman, is that I am expected to attend the meeting of the Huron branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, and I simply want to get the views of the minister on some of these points.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): You had better have the answers.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well Mr. Chairman, on the points that Heritage Canada raised, it would seem pretty clear to me that the Ontario Heritage Foundation, as distinct from the cultural affairs division of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, won’t be playing a role in music, dance, theatre, literature, those sort of things -- except perhaps in the literature field with the writing of histories and so on.

However, I think Heritage Canada is quite correct in suggesting there will be a function of the foundation in relation to various provincial museums for instance. Certainly they will have some function, at least in research or on an advisory committee, in the historical parks programme which was operated by Natural Resources in some municipalities.

I think it is important that it is fairly broad, because there will be instances where the foundation may well be involved in, the field of literature, in a specific way but not in a general way. I think the fact that matters of the nature are in the cultural affairs orbit in Culture and Recreation as it is now proposed and were in the cultural affairs division of Colleges and Universities in the past, will ensure that we avoid duplication; but we will nevertheless, have the kind of very close liaison in these related fields that is necessary.

I don’t really see the suggested inconsistencies between 7(a) and 9. One refers specifically to the objects of the foundation and the other one, to the role the foundation may have in advising the minister about this variety of things.

I might just mention, Mr. Chairman, that the next amendment I have has to do with section 24.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I just touched on one thing when I was speaking earlier and the more I think about it the more it bothers me; and that is the kind of appointments you are going to make. Maybe there’s no hope with any government that has been in power 30-some years, but I would like to see this foundation you are creating have appointed to its board, people you have traditionally overlooked. Can you just set aside for a moment all the old patronage -- and I don’t mean this in its evil connotation -- all the old patronage kind of appointments that have been made by this government over the years, and forget about the Art Grouts and the Grace Grouts for a moment when you are making appointments, and put onto the foundation some young people who are interested in our heritage.

I would assume that labour and the struggle of labour is part of the heritage of the Province of Ontario and that you would look to that sector of society for an appointment to the board. I don’t just mean the director of the steelworkers; there are all sorts of people in this province whom this government, almost by definition, overlooks and has nothing to do with at all.

I know it’s easiest to go to your friends and make your appointments from the recommendations of the members of the Legislature or the Conservative Party, or from the supporters of your party throughout the province. I understand that problem, and I don’t know how you overcome that or how you deal with that. But I’m suggesting to you that the time has come when you must try to do so.

There’s a real inherent danger, in a government such as yours, in not ever going beyond that. For example, that is one reason you have so few women on many of the boards across the province. Those people who are active in your association, those people who are the leaders of business and industry in the Province of Ontario tend to be men. And so, naturally, these are the people to whom you automatically look.

Let’s forget about the patronage appointments when we’re doing this and let’s look to appointing people who have fresh ideas about heritage in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make comment and solicit information from the minister concerning either the object of the foundation; or it could also come under further powers of the foundation, maybe overlap both. The comments I will make could cover either or both, and it would be better to cover it now and get it out of the way.

I am wondering, Mr. Minister, about organizations that have already attempted to establish themselves in a similar field. I am thinking of a local organization, a historic vehicles association. They have attempted to preserve the early automobiles used in the county of Essex, where the automobile was really first brought into Canada back in 1907 by the Ford Motor Co. They have attempted to get various historic vehicles and set up sort of a museum. Now, rather than staying strictly with the automobile end of it, they decided they would develop a pioneer village like Ford’s Greenfield village in Dearborn, or Upper Canada Village in the eastern part of Ontario. It would be set up in the centre of the county as a fairly substantial project. Not only would vehicles be presented to the public, but also one of the original school houses from the county of Essex, and other buildings of substantial historic significance would be reconstructed there.

They have already started on their project. Is it the intention of the ministry now to come in and take over and develop that project so that that type of a development could be accelerated? Or is it the intent of this legislation to allow such an organization to stay as they are and maybe attempt to get financial assistance from the ministry so they could develop it? Would the minister care to answer that?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; there is no quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Chairman: I am informed there is a quorum, we will proceed.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the minister. I think he knows what it is and probably for the sake of saving time he could answer it now.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think the way I would answer the hon. member’s question is that the foundation under the objects and the intent of the legislation would be able to assist local groups within the amount of money which they have available. On the first point, there is no intention to take over local groups, historical societies, conservation groups, building conservation groups and that sort of thing.

Mr. B. Newman: In other words, the organization could carry on just as they have been carrying on except they could look forward to some type of financial assistance through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation so that they could accelerate their interest in the type of work they are undertaking? Am I right?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, with qualifications. I think all these groups will be looking forward to assistance. I doubt there will be enough money available for all of them to get all the assistance they want as quickly as they want.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, we recognize that and we know that no organization expects to get everything they ask for immediately; but they certainly would appreciate financial assistance after this is set up.

I wanted to ask the minister if it would be one of the projects of the organization to look into recommendations that are made by a municipality. For example, in my own community there was the St. Mary’s Academy, you may be familiar with it, an old educational institution developed by the Ursuline Sisters. They no longer could operate the school, and as a result it was put up for sale and purchased by a developer.

In the meantime, there was quite an outburst by concerned citizens. I had asked the Ministry of Government Services to look into what possible use could be made of the facility by some agency of the provincial government. That was looked into by the ministry and likewise turned down. Some in the community insist there is some historical significance to the preservation of the academy. Would it be one of the responsibilities of this foundation to look into such recommendations or suggestions by either a citizen or a municipal council?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, we are really getting into part IV and to some extent part V. I think it is fair to say one of the major reasons for the introduction of this bill has been the request of municipalities to have authority to acquire some of the properties that the hon. member is mentioning. Again, how much assistance may be forthcoming from the province will have to be determined, looking at the demands and the resources available. But this will give -- and no doubt I will discuss this in a little more detail when we get further on in the bill -- this will give municipalities the authority to do some of the things and to preserve some of the structures which they have not been able to do in the past and which a number of them are very anxious to do.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: On section 10.

Mr. Chairman: We are only on section 7. Are there any other questions or comments up to section 7?

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister for an explanation of the word “recreational” in line three of section 9, which reads: “The foundation may advise and make recommendations to the minister on matters relating to property of historical, architectural, archaeological, recreational ... interest ...”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as an example, that would apply specifically in the case of the heritage park programme where there are a combination of objectives in the development of a specific property; there may be a historical interest as well as what we might call more participational recreational interest. Recreation has a pretty broad meaning.

Mr. B. Newman: The reason I asked, Mr. Chairman, is that the word “recreational” certainly covers everything you could possibly imagine. For instance, practically every community has a private golf course situated within its bounds, and there is tremendous pressure by developers to purchase these golf courses and turn them into housing. As a result, the only way such a golf course could be kept in operation is by the municipality purchasing the thing.

In my own community there are pressures for housing in the St. Clair Beach area, where we have the Lakewood Golf and Country Club, and local industry already has asked the municipality to purchase that golf club. When we’re talking about recreational value or interest, that golf course really would come under that category. And if it does come under that category, then you can expect requests from municipalities for assistance in the purchase of golf courses in all parts of the province.

I bring my own situation to your attention, Mr. Minister, because I’m familiar with it. But I wonder to what extent the foundation is going to be concerned with either the development or the preservation of such types of facilities.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not very directly, I would think. The only thing that occurs to me is that in the historical archaeological context, an old golf ball might be found some place.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: On section 10, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments before section 10?

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Laughren: I would like to make a comment on section 10 about funding. Yesterday, in the Legislature, one of the ministers -- I think it was the Minister of Culture and Recreation -- announced an Ontario lottery programme and indicated that the surplus generated by that lottery would go to support, among other things, cultural, religious and charitable organizations in Ontario. I would assume that the Heritage Foundation would benefit in some way from the lottery surplus. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I won’t amplify the statement made by the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I think it speaks for itself. It is expected that some or all of the funds that are raised will go into that general field, but they will go via the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Laughren: I understand that. I am concerned about the whole question of the surplus of the lottery, because if tradition is any indication of what happens, the people who buy lottery tickets are very often people who have modest incomes. Then, when the surplus is applied in some way in the province, it is not those same people who bought the tickets who benefit the most from it.

If my colleague from Sudbury was here, he would say: “No, that’s correct. It’s the culture vultures who end up benefiting from funds that are provided out of the consolidated revenue fund.” In this case, a large portion comes from people with modest incomes. That’s not unusual; that’s the way the system works. I don’t like it, but I understand it. One can use the same argument that the people from northern Ontario buy tickets. People from northern Ontario pay taxes to go into the consolidated revenue fund, which then is channelled into the Ontario Heritage Foundation, and in return they get an insufficient return.

It would be interesting to know, for example, to what extent you are going to regard events as something which the Ontario Heritage Foundation would support. For example, the town of Chapleau next year will celebrate its 75th anniversary as a town. That’s a community of about 3,500 people; by and large, working people with modest incomes. I’d be interested in knowing to what extent you are going to take this money that is being raised by the same kind of people and turn it back into those communities. I think that is why the definition of heritage is important. I am concerned as to whether or not you are going to see an event like that as being of significance and to what extent you will provide the kind of expertise and the kind of funding and, in general, support communities like that which want to do something.

When you consider what it is they have available to them with which to work compared to what a community such as Toronto has available to it, then the need should be evident that that’s the kind of community that needs your support, and not just of the Ontario Heritage Foundation but of the new ministry. I’m very concerned about that and I would appreciate knowing from the minister just what guarantees he can give us that the results of the taxes of people, whether it comes from income tax or whether it comes from purchasing a lottery ticket, will be distributed in such a way that it will accrue to people who in the past have not benefited from the moneys that are spent on culture and recreation in the Province of Ontario. I wonder to what extent you have thought about this and to what extent you are going to build in guarantees that the funding is distributed in a regional way in the province.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should more properly be asked of the Minister of Culture and Recreation when you are debating the bill. I would say in the case of Chapleau -- by the way is Art Grout chairman of the 75th anniversary committee?

Mr. Laughren: No, he is not.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- through the cultural affairs division, with input from some of the activities or some of the staff that the Heritage Foundation will have, there will be a variety of opportunities for historical research that might be done for Chapleau in the cultural affairs Outreach Ontario programme with displays from ROM, from the Art Gallery, from the archives and a whole variety of things which will tie in.

As to whether the Heritage Foundation would provide funds to assist in the celebration, I can’t answer that question. I would think it is doubtful, because I think that their impetus and their priorities, certainly in their first years, will be more in a material way of structures and so on. Of course, the history part of the foundation which will take over the work of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Advisory Board may well provide a plaque to permanently mark the occasion, providing that they are asked in enough time to have the research done.

Mr. Laughren: I can assure you that they will be asked in time.

One thing that bothers me is that the history in southern Ontario is much longer than it is in the north. For example, I don’t suppose a town 75 years old in southern Ontario is unusual at all. Northern Ontario is a younger part of the province and I think there is a real danger that historically significant events in a community will be overlooked because when the people concerned take a look at the number of years involved they will tend to put them aside. That’s one reason why I am so concerned about the regional representation on the board of directors.

Mr. Chairman: On section 10.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, under section 10 the Ontario Heritage Foundation may enter into agreement with property owners, prospective donors and with other persons respecting any matter within the objects of the foundation. Does this section imply a restriction upon the foundation in entering into agreement with corporate bodies, for example, with heritage societies within the province, heritage societies elsewhere, or Heritage Canada?

While section 10 permits the foundation to arrange exhibits and to undertake research, no authority is given to the foundation to publish material. Now, is it the intent of this section o grant the authority to publish material?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, my understanding of “persons” in the legal sense is that under the Interpretation Act or some other Act, a person includes a body corporate. So in that sense any organization can enter into agreements with anybody who has a charter, I guess.

The other question is regarding publishing. I would say, subject to correction, that this is covered under section C, which says that the foundation may “conduct and arrange exhibits or other cultural or recreational activities to inform and stimulate the public.” I would think that publishing would be a cultural activity. If you were going to inform the public, you could do it by means of some publication.

On the other hand, though, within the cultural affairs division there are two publishing operations. I’m sure that, by arrangement, if the foundation wished to publish something of importance in the fields in which they are working, they would be able to do it within the ministry.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about section 10, clause (a), where it says the foundation may acquire by purchase, property of scenic interest. I’m taking out the various words that are involved in there. It is much lengthier than that, but it all refers to what I’m saying.

Now, may the foundation then come along and purchase a piece of property in a community, either directly itself, by grant to the community, or by the community and then have it vested in the foundation for scenic purposes?

Right in my community we have the British American Hotel in the downtown area. It is a building that has caused quite a bit of controversy in the last election. The building is physically not worth the money asked for it, but because of its location right along the Detroit River, it prevents the development of a municipal park. The park could extend a little east of Ouellette Ave. right in the downtown area -- and I know the minister is familiar with the area.

Could the community therefore ask for a grant from the foundation, or would the foundation come along and purchase that piece of property so that there would be unbroken park in the community?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Speaking of what the foundation could do the answer would be, yes. Thinking of that hotel in particular, I think it’s unlikely that the foundation would acquire it because --

Mr. B. Newman: The hotel isn’t used.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I would say that it doesn’t strike me as being of provincial historical importance. It may be of historical importance to Windsor, but I don’t think it’s an unique type of building. I think the reason it was shut is because they couldn’t keep it going. Isn’t that correct? There weren’t enough people enjoying it; that’s why they closed it as a hotel, didn’t they?

Mr. B. Newman: But if the province purchased that property there would be enough people to enjoy it, because the “garden gateway to Canada,” the prime entry into Canada, is the city of Windsor.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Oh wrong!

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That’s right. There’s more tourist traffic in Windsor than any other port in Canada. I can verify that.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s right. My colleague from Essex-Kent worked in customs so he is familiar with that. There are more tourists entering Canada through the city of Windsor than through any other point of entry, and it certainly would be a substantial addition. The hotel, Mr. Minister, is not used at all; it’s simply a piece of property that remains as such because it was an original hotel. You can’t do anything with it other than expropriate, which is extremely costly, but the foundation could purchase it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I should say is that it would be possible for the foundation to do this, but that is not making any kind of a commitment that the foundation will do it.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 10 carry?

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anybody before section 23?

Mr. Riddell: Yes, 15.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Section 15 states:

“The foundation, its real and personal property and business and income are exempt from all assessment and taxation made, imposed or levied by or under the authority of any Act of the Legislature, but this section does not apply to any property of the foundation while leased under clause (g) of subsection 1 of section 10 to a person or organization not registered as a charitable organization under the Income Tax Act.”

In effect, then, section 15 makes the foundation exempt from all Ontario assessment and taxation. There is, however, this important exemption of property leased under section 10.

Heritage Canada questions the desirability of this exemption. In the course of its operation the foundation will acquire real property which it leases to a tenant at a market rent. No doubt the income will be placed in the general revenue of the foundation. Whether or not taxes are paid on the property will not affect the level of the rent which will be set by market conditions, but it will affect the financial position of the foundation.

Heritage Canada believes that the case can be made not to tax the foundation in any circumstances but permit it to use its revenues to the maximum to carry out its objectives. On the other hand, the case can equally be made that a municipality should not lose taxes because the foundation has acquired property within it. Whether that property is used as a museum, rented to a charitable foundation, or rented to a private individual or commercial enterprise should not affect the tax revenues of the municipality concerned. Otherwise an impediment is placed in the way of co-operation between the foundation and municipalities, which will look upon the foundation as a liability to their tax departments. The present bill does create a loss of municipal revenue.

Heritage Canada suggests to the Ontario government that, first, all heritage property owned by the foundation should be relieved of provincial taxes, whatever its use, and second, municipalities should be compensated by provincial grants for their loss of taxes because of property in the title of the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

Just what are your views on this, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the committee is aware at the moment that the province is actively studying the whole question of tax exemptions, municipal tax-exempt properties, lands, parks and this sort of thing, and no doubt whatever policy is evolved will apply to the activities of the foundation. I would say, though, that the foundation expects to be working closely with municipalities. It also expects to be using the structures which it acquires for useful purposes and in conjunction very often with the municipality, even if the property is leased. It seems clear that the owner be in the same position vis-à-vis the municipality, as any other owner, that the rental charge would include municipal taxes. On the other hand, if it is a charitable organization, most of which are presently exempted by municipalities, there would probably be no change. Basically, what I am saying is that whatever comes up as far as provincial policy is concerned about provincially owned property will apply, I am sure, to the properties that will be acquired by the foundation.

Section 15 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to comment before section 23?

Mr. Riddell: Section 22.

Sections 16 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 22:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Section 22 provides for easements and covenants entered into by the foundation. This is an excellent step. Covenants freely entered into by property owners can be a major contribution to the conservation of heritage property without cost to the province or to the foundation. Heritage Canada therefore, wonders why authorization of covenants is restricted to property owners, to the foundation and to municipalities only. This legislation elsewhere recognizes that there are many heritage organizations within the province which share the objectives of the foundation. Why then should they be prevented from entering directly into covenants with property owners in the interest of heritage conservation rather than through the foundation?

Heritage Canada suggests to the Ontario government that the section on easements and covenants be expanded to include recognition of such covenants entered into by any heritage organization recognized by the minister for the purpose. The recognition could take the form of an order in council or regulations under the Act. What are the minister’s views on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, an historic easement concept is a very new one to this country and to this province. In fact, this is the first use or the first statutory authority that has been provided to do such a thing. It may well be that this legal concept will have broader application in the future, I would point out to the committee that in the event that, say, the Kingston Historical Society wanted to acquire one, and it has acquired several buildings -- the first one it acquired it restored and then resold to an owner with some sort of a restriction, not this kind of covenant -- if it wanted to negotiate or acquire such a one, it would be possible under section 22, subsection 3, to negotiate a covenant or obtain one and then assign its use to the Kingston Historical Society or another local group. That is the thought that we have for the first few years of experience, and I shall let Heritage Canada know that.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 22 carry?

Section 22 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 25?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for section 24, if I may.

Section 23 agreed to.

On section 24:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 2 of section 24 be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“2. A member of the review board may be appointed for a term not exceeding three years but may be eligible for reappointment, except that the member shall not serve for more than two consecutive terms, but any such member shall be again eligible for appointment after the expiration of one year following completion of two consecutive terms.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the technicalities but I would like to speak on subsection 1. It is my assumption that if we pass the amendment on 2 --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t realize the member wanted to speak on 1, perhaps I could withdraw that until we have dealt with 1.

Mr. Foulds: We could just leave it on the table, until we deal with subsection 1. I am a little concerned that the definition of the membership of the board in subsection 1 is as vague as it is. That is, the clause says that it shall not be fewer than three persons. Presumably it could be as many as 15, let’s say. And that causes me a great deal of concern in relationship to sub-clause 4, which constitutes the quorum of the committee as one.

I think it would be much better to express the quorum in a fraction of the total membership of the committee. If you are going to have a board that is larger than three, it might be very valuable to have the quorum stated as one-third of the board. I think this would be acceptable and achieve the purposes that I know you’re trying to achieve.

In the case of a review board having to go out to the hinterland to review a site, talk to a municipality and so on, you certainly don’t want the whole expanded board having to go. I do feel a little worried that we could have quite an expanded board, say to 15, say to 12 even, and still the quorum of the review board being only one.

It’s a bit awkward that I’m tying sub-clauses 1 and 4 together in relationship, and you’ve introduced the amendment in 2. But I wonder if you want to stick with the definition in sub-clause 1, whether we could reconsider an amendment in sub-clause 4.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think it’s important to remember that this is not a judicial body. It is really an advisory body, I would anticipate, made up of people with some expertise in the various fields on which they will perhaps be hearing submissions and giving the benefit of their expertise to the municipality or to the minister or the heritage foundation.

Specifically, we have said three at this point in time because I really don’t know how busy they’re going to be. I would anticipate, just as with a judicial board -- like the Ontario Municipal Board -- that there may well be times when one person would be sufficient to hear a submission. In other cases, in a major problem, it may be that the whole board or half of it would attend. It may well be necessary that we will require, because of the volume of work, more than five or three people. If the committee would accept this the way it is, I can assure the committee that in the forthcoming sessions, and even before the summer session ends, if it is indicated we require these changes, I’m sure that the minister responsible will be responsive.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am intrigued by your comparison to the OMB because, as you say, this is not a judicial committee -- it is advisory only.

I would think that if we are to take the bill seriously, any property that is viewed as part or parcel of Ontario’s heritage would be a serious matter. I would think that while there is a three-man board, perhaps it would be advisable to have two as the quorum. If it were expanded beyond that, then go to the fraction; and that’s a suggestion for future consideration in seeing how it works.

I understand the tentativeness with which one wants to approach this kind of legislation. You are, to coin a phrase, breaking new ground or preserving old ground.

I did want to express those concerns, though, and I would hope that the minister would seriously monitor the workings of the board and perhaps even report to the legislative assembly, even if there aren’t going to be amendments, in terms of how it is working and the reason for not bringing in amendments. That might be a very worthwhile exercise before the summer recess.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will pass on the suggestion about reporting to my colleague.

Mr. Riddell: In the same regard -- and I trust my colleague has also been following the brief presented by Heritage Canada -- their concern is that such a heavy responsibility is placed on one person and that by overruling a designation, that person could cause the demolition of valued heritage without appeal. In other words, perhaps it is a situation where two minds would be better than one.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, having seen Heritage Canada’s brief, I think they have misinterpreted the role of the board too. The board has no authority to start or stop something. The board conducts a hearing and gives the interested parties in the community an opportunity to be heard. It makes a report to whichever body it is that is responsible, but it is that body itself which makes the ultimate determination. Whether the board says to go ahead and demolish it or not, really won’t prevent it or permit it.

Mr. Foulds: That is a real conundrum you are into in the bill in effect. I suppose it expresses itself more clearly in section 29, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to make a few comments about that when we get to that section.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions on section 24 before we deal with the amendment?

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the minister could briefly explain the reason for making the amendment. I don’t think we disagree with it, but I imagine it is because you wish certain expertise to be carried on.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, and to have a little more continuity. In this way, we will be able to appoint, say, one for one year, one for two years, one for three years, the first time round, so that we won’t have a total change every time.

Mr. Foulds: That would take it up to six years then.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In other words, if somebody is appointed for one year and reappointed for three, that person will actually have served four years but two terms and then would have to be changed. It is just to ensure that we have continuity.

Motion agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section in part IV that anyone wishes to discuss?

Mr. Foulds: Section 29, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Riddell: Section 27, Mr. Chairman.

Section 26 agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: I have just a short comment. Section 27 provides that a register of all designated properties within the municipality be kept by the clerk of the municipality. Apparently the legislation covers only the heritage which lies within municipalities of the province. Are means envisaged for the protection of properties in remote areas?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t hear the last part of the hon. member’s comments.

Mr. Riddell: In this bill we are dealing with heritage within municipalities, but are means envisaged for the protection of properties in remote areas? In other words, section 27 provides that a register of all designated properties within the municipality be kept by the clerk of the municipality. What happens when we get into remote areas without municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, those that are in unorganized areas obviously will be known to the foundation, and the foundation will keep an eye on them, probably through Natural Resources, who have people in the field.

Section 27 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur. Which section?

Mr. Foulds: Section 29. Is there anything before that?

Mr. Chairman: No, there is nothing before section 29. Go ahead.

Section 28 agreed to.

On section 29:

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a lengthy section with a number of clauses. I don’t know how to get out of the conundrum that I mentioned earlier with relation to section 24, but it does strike me as inconceivable that after a thorough hearing of the review board and a property being designated, that the regional council -- or whoever the responsible body is -- overturns that decision. But I can see that happening.

We have had enough instances in the very recent past in Ontario where fine city halls have been torn down in order to get the money that was available for developers. I think that happened in Peterborough, and I think it happened in Kitchener-Waterloo, if not mistaken. I want to know how you avoid that in terms of this legislation; it would look as if that is impossible unless there was the possibility of a direct ministerial order or order-in-council. All the dangers that that entails are the dangers of a heavy-handed provincial administration coming in to upset the economy of the locally elected officials.

The key that we have to think about here in terms of municipal buildings is that the municipal council has a conflict of interest because its municipal levies are sometimes taxed to the limit. And if they can cut down on expenditure, or get money through the sale of a property or building -- particularly before election time -- they might go for that shortsighted decision, rather than the long-term one which would be of benefit, not only to the people within their community, but to the people in the community of Ontario as a whole.

So that you have a second conflict, a conflict between what is in the interest of the local community and in the interest of the community of Ontario. I don’t think, for all its attempts -- and there have been, as we’ve said on second reading, good attempts here -- that this bill has really solved that problem. As the purpose of the structure by the bill is to preserve the heritage of Ontario, I would think that somewhere in the bill there must be a clause that gives that authority. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. I don’t have a clause that suggests it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member put the problem that we face very clearly, and if he has a solution I would be delighted to have it. This is the best that we can come up with. It really is in the hands of the community and it is the citizens’ interest in that community in the final analysis that will see whether a structure, such as a city hall, is preserved or isn’t. I suppose that there is a final remedy but I would doubt it would be applied -- that is, that the province can expropriate from a municipality if it has reasons to do so. We can’t expropriate from the federal government or from a national railway.

Mr. Foulds: What a pity.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- or certain other bodies, nationally chartered. That is my hope and my expectation, actually, with the very considerable increased interest on the part of the very large and growing part of the population in the preservation of a number of things. We may, unfortunately, lose some; I don’t know. I think that this is a pretty good piece down the road so far anyway.

I know in the case of my own community some years ago we were faced with this problem. It wasn’t as an historic structure that the community decided to keep it; it was because we wanted a theatre and a group of citizens got very interested and prevailed upon the council to put it on the ballot. We kept the theatre and turned down $75,000 for the corner. We are all very delighted now and it is actually of some historic significance too.

Mr. Foulds: This is such a genial discussion that I don’t want to escalate the debate, but I find it difficult to accept from the minister who is responsible for the legislation that, “Unfortunately, we might lose some buildings that are of paramount historical interest in Ontario.” The minister has indicated that in certain circumstances we could expropriate. I suppose in terms of parallels --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps I should have put it the other way, Mr. Chairman. It may well be, but I don’t anticipate it because I think that ones of major importance will be supported by the public. I should also have said there will another carrot in that the foundation may well be able to assist financially, which will help to sway the views of those who would like to see demolition in the community simply because they are anxious to see the money.

Mr. Foulds: I suppose what you are saying indicates the whole essential weakness of the Act in that basically you are relying on goodwill and intelligence. It’s the same attitude that prevails with the Ministry of the Environment, a ministry with which you have some familiarity, in its reluctance about the returnable versus the non-returnable bottle, and with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications’ refusal about the seatbelts. They rely on a heightened public consciousness, which I think is necessary to do, but surely there are other steps, other weapons if you like, open to the provincial government.

If I might just continue, for example, the analogy probably isn’t a good one; but because there was a considerable concern by a number of people, not only in northwestern Ontario but throughout the province, that logging in Quetico Park be stopped, essentially for the preservation of some of the same aims that are desired in this bill in terms of aesthetic, scenic and historic values, the province was able to do that. I would hope that simply because a scenic or historic property, building or what have you happens to be in an urban setting rather than in a Crown-land setting or a rural setting that the province would be able to exercise its authority.

I know the tremendous difficulties, as I’ve indicated, when you get into property that has already been alienated from the Crown. There are tremendous difficulties, particularly if you are a Conservative and your view of property is that it is sacrosanct. I don’t know how this government copes with that. I frankly don’t know how our government would cope with that. But I think that in exceptional circumstances there should be rights of expropriation for the minister responsible for this bill, perhaps rather than the foundation itself.

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, with your government there would be a lot more of those buildings.

Mr. Foulds: Well yes, that’s perfectly true. That’s perfectly true, Mr. Chairman. There will be a small mansion in Brampton that we’ll preserve as an historic site of an obscure Premier who held office for four years.

Mr. Riddell: Section 29.

Mr. Chairman: On section 29. The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: It has been suggested that this is a fairly lengthy section and therefore it has led to a fairly lengthy concern on the part of Heritage Canada.

I trust you’ve had a chance to study the brief presented by Heritage Canada, Mr. Minister. But I think its concerns should be expressed here so that we can get them on record; so that we might refer to them when we go to our own ridings in order to explain some of these sections to the interested people back there. Heritage Canada says:

“Section 29 requires that when the council of the municipality intends to designate property it must notify its intention to the owner and it must publish a newspaper notice. While these are reasonable provisions as far as they go, they give no assurance that groups actively concerned with the conservation of heritage will be adequately informed. Newspaper notices are a satisfactory means of informing bodies with staff, but are a difficult form of communication for voluntary groups.

“In similar circumstances elsewhere, heritage conservation groups are invited to register with such a body if they are duly recognized. Then they have the right to receive such documents as notices of intention to designate or appeals against designation. Heritage Canada recommends accepting the right of duly recognized heritage. conservation societies to receive such notices.”

You will perhaps make notes as I go along here, Mr. Minister, and then we’ll get your answers later.

“At this point, Heritage Canada wishes to question the wisdom of a designation procedure which is based solely upon passing the municipal bylaws. There is every reason to provide machinery for the supplementary designation of property by a municipality, but making this the only form of designation of heritage property would appear to constitute a weakness in the proposed legislation.

“While strongly supporting the concept of citizen participation in advice given to any designation board, Heritage Canada believes that property designation should be a responsibility of the provincial government itself, not delegated to municipalities. Two different but admirable models are found in the provinces of Quebec and Alberta. Such province-wide designation is the best guarantee of consistency. Only at the provincial level is there an adequate assurance of sufficient qualified judgement brought to bear upon designation. While some large cities have staff professionals with adequate training, experience and taste to advise the board upon its recommendations, most municipalities do not.

“The logical role of the municipality is not to make, alone and unaided, judgements on what aspect of the province’s heritage will remain for generations to come, but to supplement lists made by a higher authority. That is, to supplement such lists with property which has some special local value which cannot properly be recognized by a province-wide board.

“In addition, there is a strong philosophical reason why designation of the heritage of a province or of a nation should not be left solely at the municipal level. Designation involves adversary positions. On the one hand are those who wish to conserve. On the other side are those who oppose conservation because it stands in the way of profits from demolition and new development.

“If the first party wishes to have credibility and avoid charges of emotion or a personal involvement, it must have the best judgement of the best-qualified and most-respected professionals in the whole province. Those responsible for designation need that kind of moral authority behind them because their adversaries are often national or multi-national corporations with enormous economic power and public relations tools behind them. The heritage of Ontario is too important to be left to a relatively defenceless group which may have conscience, goodwill and good taste on its side, but little else.

“One of the purposes of designation machinery is to protect heritage against unwise, short-range decision-making made under the pressures of the development industry at the municipal level. It is therefore no accident that no country within our knowledge leaves designation to the municipality itself.

“An analogy in another field is the Ontario Municipal Board which, rightly or wrongly, assumes that citizens need a final protection against the decisions of their municipal lawmakers.

“While it may be held that the review board envisaged in the bill would hold a position similar to the Ontario Municipal Board, this is true only in a negative sense. If, because of local financial or political pressures, ignorance, or lack of professional guidance, the municipality fails to designate property of importance, the review board cannot correct the mistake; it can deal only with controversy surrounding nominations already made by the municipal council for designation. The best, therefore, that can be hoped from the review board is that it will not do too much harm by permitting too many appeals against proposed designations.

“Finally, it may be underlined that what this bill sets out to protect is not only heritage of local significance or, indeed, of province-wide significance. Under the Canadian constitution, the province has responsibility for guarding the heritage property of the nation which lies within the boundaries of a province. When the province does not protect, the federal government is legally powerless to do so unless it happens to own the property in question.

“Is, then, the province justified in shifting this provincial and, indeed, national responsibility to a municipality? What guarantee is there within Bill 176 that a municipality will even establish, let alone widely use, designation machinery? Is the survival of that considerable part of Canada’s heritage which lies within Ontario to be left to chance and to local politics?”

It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that in this bill this seems to be of major concern to Heritage Canada and, of course, to the affiliated groups, such as the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I neglected to mention this before, but originally we had expected that Heritage Canada was going to present a brief. I think they were invited to on Jan. 17, but were unable to because they had a meeting in Newfoundland. But I have read the brief.

As I said some time ago, this legislation is partly the result of submissions that we have had from municipalities asking to have this kind of authority. I have confidence that they will exercise it wisely and well.

I should point out that there is nothing to prevent the province working with a municipality and assisting a municipality in the acquisition of property. Nor is there anything to prevent a province acquiring a property itself. I understand there are a number which have been sort of listed as priorities if the province wants to see them acquired.

But I really don’t agree with Heritage Canada that municipalities are not good people to do this kind of thing. In fact, I think they are. As we discussed in the last section, I would hesitate to say that municipalities should not be doing the kind of thing that they will be permitted to do under this legislation, as they have asked to do.

I think that the combination of provincial input and local input is important. I also think that there are structures and properties which are of provincial importance and there are others which are of local importance. The government of Canada says that in its programmes there are structures of national importance which it will acquire, and there are structures of provincial importance which the province should look after. I think that the same thing applies to municipalities.

As I said before, I think this is a pretty good start. It may well be we will find that it isn’t working out effectively, in which case we can change it. But I think that it is a good start. I am confident that it will do the things that we expect it to do and the things that the municipalities have asked us to help them to do.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for section 29, which is really a housekeeping thing again.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that sub-clause 2 of clause (a) of subsection 14 of section 29 of the bill be repealed and the following substituted therefor: “to be served on the owner and on the foundation.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: The explanation, Mr. Chairman, is that the municipality really doesn’t have to serve notice on itself.

Motion agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other sections of the bill prior to section 50 of the bill?

Mr. Riddell: Section 33.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron. Do all other sections prior to 33 carry?

Sections 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 33:

Mr. Riddell: Another concern of Heritage Canada here is:

“One questions the value of such sections as 33 which provides that an owner may not alter his property after it is designated. If he cannot get permission to make alterations on his house, he has automatically the right to demolish it by waiting for nine months. Conceivably, an effect of this law might sometimes be an acceleration of demolition by an owner who, as the result of the law, finds it more difficult to make alterations.

“Heritage Canada welcomes the power given to municipalities to expropriate designated property, but one wonders how real in practice that expropriating power would be: If a property is protected for only a few months, there may scarcely be time for the legal process of expropriation before the owner exercises his right to demolish his property.

“Municipalities may make grants and loans to owners of designated property. This provision would have more effect if the source of such funds were indicated. If the survival of one of the most important structures in Canada depends upon the operating budget of a hard-pressed municipality, the right to make loans and grants has relatively little meaning. On the other hand, a provincially operated designating structure with resources to provide needed financial aid could be of great help to the survival of provincial heritage.”

What are your views on that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the public cannot in effect take some of these properties from them or require them to do something with their property which they don’t wish, unless the public is prepared to assist in the cost. There is provision for municipalities to assist an owner in doing some restoration or repairs so that he may continue to occupy the designated structure. On the other hand, there is also a provision for the province, through the heritage foundation, to assist a municipality in that kind of thing.

I don’t think at this stage that the government is ready to set up a sort of an open-ended grant system for the maintenance or acquisition of historic structures. I think, as I have said, that there will be funds available for the heritage foundation to assist municipalities, but they will have to be dealt with on an individual application basis, at least for the foreseeable future.

Section 33 agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds moves that the words “for a period of 180 days from the date of its decision” in section 34, subsection (2)(b) be deleted from the bill.

Mr. Foulds: I am sorry I only have one copy, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could reread it to the hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot accept that amendment. At the present time, not to the total amazement of the hon. member, I expect, as it presently stands, the municipality may delay or prevent demolition for 90 days while it considers the application, and then another 180 days -- a total of nine months. I think, again looking at the rights of a property owner, that nine months is an adequate time for a municipality to make up its mind and to take whatever steps it has to, if it decides to expropriate or something else. I’m afraid that I couldn’t accept that amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is the whole crux of the bill. This clause, 34 (2)(b), as it is written, shows the essential gutlessness and the essential frivolity with which this ministry and this government view preservation in Ontario, because all you are doing in this bill is postponing the possibility of demolition; you are not preserving. And when you are only postponing for a mere -- what is it -- a total of 270 days, that’s not even a year. What this government and this ministry are prepared to do is to preserve the cultural heritage of Ontario for less than a year. That’s the essential principle of this bill. It’s embodied in this clause and it’s a gutless clause.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What is the minister’s response?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has responded on this.

All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.” All opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the amendment lost.

Section 34 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions before section 50 of the bill?

Mr. Riddell: Section 40.

Sections 35 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 40:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: This is, again, a concern of Heritage Canada, and it “commends the Ontario government for its emphasis upon conservation areas. It notes, however, an inconsistency between the vocabulary used in this part of the bill -- ”

Mr. Chairman: I think the minister has an amendment and maybe we’d better hear that amendment first.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that part V of the bill be amended by striking out “historic” wherever it occurs and inserting in lieu thereof “heritage.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

On section 41:

Mr. Riddell: Any amendment here, Mr. Minister, before we carry on? Heritage Canada states:

“Section 41 provides that no property designated by a municipality be designated as a conservation district. It would appear that this provision has been inserted to protect the owner of designated property from the need to comply with two parallel sets of regulations. While the objective is reasonable, the means to achieve it are questionable.

“Would it not be preferable to provide that when a designated property lies within a heritage conservation district its owner is required to comply only with appropriate municipal regulations and not with parallel conservation area regulations? Municipal regulations would thus take precedence over regulations for the conservation area.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by our legal people -- we had quite a discussion about this provision -- that the way to avoid conflict between a designated structure as an individual structure and a district, where in a district you’re only dealing with the exteriors, was to do it as we have done it here. I don’t know where Heritage Canada got its legal advice, but I’m told that as we’re doing it in this provision we will be able to accomplish the objective without legal problems that might have applied to a designated structure within a conservation district. So the conservation district, when the plan is filed, will specifically exclude the property on which a designated structure is located. So the rules or the requirements that apply to a designated structure will only apply to it; and the rules that apply to the conservation district will apply to the district and not the designated structure.

Mr. Riddell: It is a case, Mr. Chairman, where Heritage Canada was not given enough time to get legal advice, so it’s doing this on its own.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Either that or it may have saved a little time. Sometimes when you get legal advice from several of the profession, it takes longer than if you only get it from one.

Section 41 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 50? Does any member wish to speak or comment on anything before section 50?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on section 47, dealing with resources of archaeological value.

Sections 42 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 47:

Mr. Foulds: In your definition of property under the archaeological section, why is it that you don’t include buildings or structures other than ruins? Is there a reason for that in terms of the authority given to various agencies operating within the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding of property is that it includes land and whatever may be on it, but in the archaeological field we are primarily interested in what is under the land. If the ministry designates a property of archaeological importance, it will include ruins and what not, but it will also include what is under the surface.

Mr. Foulds: I have some very small smattering of knowledge of archaeology. It may not exist in Ontario, but surely it is possible to dig out what is a complete building, rather than a building that is ruined -- a building that has been buried and preserved. It is not very likely, but I know what has happened at Knossos in Greece, for example; they are, in fact, ruins. But one can imagine certain buildings, such as the Parthenon before the Turks got at it, somehow being buried in sand by the Egyptians and yet the building itself being intact. Discovering and uncovering it would be an archaeological endeavour. I am wondering whether this section gives the authority to archaeologists, and to the pursuit of archaeology, for buildings that are intact but are yet somehow buried.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am informed that it does, Mr. Chairman, although I am not in a legal position to explain the nuances.

Mr. Foulds: Well, as long as we have the assurance, not only of yourself but of your legal advisers, that it does do that, then I think that is fine.

Section 47 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section that anyone wishes to discuss or amend prior to section 73?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for section 62.

On section 48:

Mr. Foulds: I have a question on section 48, if I might, Mr. Chairman. What is the state of archaeological exploration today? Do archaeologists need to be licensed at the present time by the minister? Will this force all archaeologists who are engaged in that activity in the province to be licensed? Have you had any representations from archaeologists and the archaeological society? I would imagine that they are in favour of the move.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, this was worked out with the association, with individuals and with our own archaeological people, and it has received everybody’s approval.

Mr. Foulds: Let me start with the obvious question. Have you decided on a licence fee yet? Is it going to be minimal, and is it simply in order to make sure that archaeologically valuable sites aren’t damaged by people who are not qualified to undertake the activity?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, it will be a minimal sum.

Sections 48 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 62?

Mr. Riddell: Section 60, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry. The member for Port Arthur would like to discuss section 55.

Mr. Riddell: Oh, all right.

On section 55:

Mr. Foulds: There seems to be a contradiction in the principle in the bill in section 55 in that the owner may apply to the minister to have the decision revoked, whereas when we were considering the historic site section, it didn’t even get to the ministerial level. Surely, there is a lack of parallelism there, or something.

Why is it that the decision can go to the ministerial level here, and doesn’t in terms of the other? I know what the obvious answer is. But it does seem to me, therefore, to place the legislation itself in a contradict tor position in that it doesn’t view historic sites with the same focus as it does archaeological sites. Perhaps the minister could explain that.

Is it that archaeological sites are more valuable, as well as the fact that they come more directly under Crown land probably and provincial administration?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is this difference. For instance, if somebody knocks down a wall of a structure you can always replace it -- and you can generally find the evidence to replace it properly.

Mr. Foulds: If you knocked down the wall of the Forum you couldn’t replace it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But my understanding of the archaelogical field is that a great deal of importance is attached to the surroundings; the strata, the earth -- that sort of thing. My advice is that we may not be talking about the same sort of economic importance, but the site of archaeological importance may be harmed or destroyed a lot more rapidly than, say, a structure.

Mr. Foulds: Well, it is doubtful that there is a lot more damage in weather terms as opposed to developer-builder terms.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 55 carry? Sections 55 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 60. The hon. member for Huron.

On section 60:

Mr. Riddell: I don’t think there is any real issue here. It’s just that Heritage Canada are making a suggestion and we’ll hear the views of the minister.

Section 60 provides penalties for contravention of the law.

“While a maximum fine of $10,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a corporation may seem adequate, it is useful to consider them in relation to the scale of modern real estate transactions. When it is not uncommon to have development projects involving investments of $25 million, the corporation could regard the risk of a fine of 1/5 of 1 per cent to be more in the nature of an operating expense than a deterrent.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I suppose you could argue it either way. There are those who would say that to have an even higher penalty amount might indicate to a magistrate that for a very minor offence somebody should he fined $10,000 or $15,000.

I think all I can say is that we had some considerable discussion about the amount of the penalty. This is what we have come up with. If we find that this is not effective, then obviously there would be a change submitted in the Legislature. I think it’s a great improvement over, for instance, the present situation under a demolition bylaw where, I think, the maximum fine is $500. It really might be interpreted in a large project as simply another form of licence.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 60 carry?

Sections 60 and 61 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 62. The hon. minister.

On section 62:

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 1 of section 62 be amended by inserting after “period” in the ninth line the following:

“The minister or any person authorized by him in writing.”

Mr. Chairman: You have heard the minister’s amendment. Are there any comments?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, again I don’t think this section goes far enough. I’m not going to belabour the point but even with the amendment once again it is contradictory to what the minister has just said. Previously the minister had said that it is part of the surrounding and setting that is of archaeological importance. Here all the minister or ministry has the authority to do is to issue a stop order and to work on the site for 180 days to take off the objects or structures.

If you found a site of some significance and of some great value, 180 days is not nearly long enough to remove them. If you found an Indian village, surely to goodness a five-year period is not too long a period to ask to remove all that is of cultural heritage and value. What you’ve done with your amendment in effect is simply give someone within the ministry, your agent, the authority to examine the property and remove or salvage objects therefrom.

What I’m saying is that, especially in this case, if you genuinely wish to salvage objects, it may very well take longer than 180 days. For example, if the situation developed, say, in northern Ontario during November, it may very well not be possible to work as you outline there for the immediate months. What you are going to say is that you would be well aware of these things long enough in advance. I’m not sure that that’s true. Certainly that hasn’t been true in the past. I would sincerely hope that you would very, very seriously consider extending it to a three to five-year period.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Very briefly, this is really an emergency procedure. If it was of such importance and if so much work was involved that it was going to take longer, it could be designated, in which case then we would be dealing with compensation for loss of business or whatever it was with the owner. This is basically an emergency procedure.

Mr. Foulds: Let me just explore this a little further so that I understand it completely. You can then, during the course of this stop order, designate the property indefinitely?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We would investigate it and if we found that it was of importance, then we would designate it.

Mr. Foulds: And you could do that indefinitely? Fine. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, I would just like to support my colleague here in the remark that he has made. This section which the minister has amended relates somewhat to section 34. I think the minister is well aware that Heritage Canada considers these sections are probably the greatest weaknesses in the proposed legislation in that any designated property within the province -- and I’m referring more to section 34 now -- may be demolished within 270 days. If they consider this a great weakness, and certainly my colleague has supported their concerns about this weakness, I think it’s worth your consideration, if indeed you are going to be making amendments in a short period of time.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 62 as amended form part of the bill?

Section 62 as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section before section 73 which any member wishes to discuss.

Mr. Riddell: Section 69, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds: Just before that section 67 if I might --

Sections 63 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

On section 67:

Mr. Foulds: I’ve always been interested to find out what the legal definition of one’s last known address is. And I ask it with a certain amount of personal interest because I am still getting mail from government ministries to an address that happens by a sheer fluke to be in the Thunder Bay phone book but at which I have not lived for a year and a half. I suppose they find out by checking the phone book. Yet the phone book happens to be wrong, and has not been corrected even though I have made several representations to the Thunder Bay telephone firm.

So this gives me an opportunity to ask the minister what is the legal definition of one’s last known address. What compulsion is there on the parties concerned to investigate the address of the person? Can the minister answer, or do we need a lawyer to answer that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): It is where you die.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That may be hard to ascertain. There is a legal procedure -- perhaps one of my colleagues could help me. I recall one occasion, in Environment, with a property owner who we had not been able to reach, that it turned out that while we had checked at the registry office we hadn’t followed up, other than by registered letter to the address that was shown in the registry office. Well no, I guess not by registered letter, so it didn’t come back. But I think that there are procedures you must take to indicate that you have tried to find somebody properly. It may well vary, but this is what you generally find in the statutes, so I assume that it is the normal procedure.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron on 68 -- or did you want to speak on 67?

Mr. B. Newman: Section 67.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Under subsection 2 of 67, Mr. Chairman, the first sentence reads “where service is made by mail, the service shall be deemed to be made on the third day after the day of mailing.”

Mr. Chairman, I think the third day is much much too soon. That’s almost instant delivery today. Back home I find it extremely difficult to get mail from here within three days, and if it is mailed on a Friday, the third day would be a Monday and there is no way.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I understand that registered mail gets through a little more rapidly than regular mail.

Mr. B. Newman: Sometimes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I also understand if there isn’t delivery on Saturday and, of course, on Sunday, you consider the three days to be Friday, Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we had a similar section in one of the other pieces of legislation, and we had it changed in that. I think the three should be changed to five.

Mr. Chairman: Do you so move?

Mr. B. Newman: And I would so move, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds: Before that goes --

Hon. Mr. Auld: My advisers shrug and say if you would like to make it five we would be delighted.

Mr. Foulds: -- I would plead to make it seven because the normal mailing time from --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Any further offers before we close?

Mr. Foulds: -- Toronto to Thunder Bay is, in fact, five days. So let’s make it a week, seven days, which I think is --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Any further offers before we close?

Mr. Foulds: Do I hear 10?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Seven days. I would move an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that in section 67, subsection 2, the word “third” in the second line be changed to “seventh.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 67, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak before section 73?

Mr. Riddell: On section 69, Mr. Chairman.

Section 68 agreed to.

On section 69:

Mr. Riddell: I realize the hour is 1 o’clock and I think we can complete this bill in two minutes. I just have one short comment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can give you the answer without the comment.

Mr. Riddell: You have got an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, I have got the answer. Heritage Canada say that in the question of health that a municipality should decide whether in fact it is actually a question of health if the person doesn’t carry out the repairs. I would simply point out that the section says that repairs for health and other reasons are a bar against prosecution. In fact, what would happen is that if the municipality prosecuted, it would be the judge who would decide whether it is a question of health; and I think that’s where it should be resolved, in the courts.

Sections 69 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Bill 176 be reported?

Bill 176, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler 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 reports one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that on Monday I would ask members of the assembly to prepare for bills 191, 190, 177, 192, 193 and 194. Should we be successful in concluding those items, I will announce further legislation then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.