MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE ACT

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

On section 1:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the carrying of section 1 of this bill. When it was introduced, the parliamentary assistant told us it was a very short and simple bill and that its purpose was simply to provide for a uniform three-year term of office for municipal councils and local boards across the province, beginning with the coming municipal elections this fall.

The parliamentary assistant then went on to tell us on second reading that this bill was intended to achieve certain objectives. He did not say it would simply extend the term from two to three years. He said it would do these things: First, it would increase voter turnout; second, it would allow for long-term planning; third, it would encourage municipalities to act more responsibly and depend less on the province for guidance; and, fourth, it would heighten public awareness, create an interest in local government.

These are all very commendable objectives, and I agree with the parliamentary assistant in hoping this extension of the term may produce those objectives. However, the parliamentary assistant seemed to see this legislation as a sort of bargain with municipal politicians. In return for the benefits of a three-year term, he stated he hoped that municipal politicians would provide better municipal government. He put it this way: "We believe that municipal politicians will fulfil their part of the bargain with the province, and if they do, municipal electors will be better served by the three-year term."

If this bill is an agreement between the province and the municipal politicians for better municipal government, it seems to me it ought to spell out the terms of the bargain more precisely. We are all in favour of better municipal government. We all know that at the provincial level we consider it part of good government to have disclosure of election contributions and expenses. But when I raised the necessity for similar disclosure at the municipal level and for including it in this bill, the parliamentary assistant did not say he was opposed to the principle. He just did not consider it part of this bill.

I contend that if this bill is in the nature of a bargain with municipal politicians for better municipal government, the terms of that bargain should be spelled out in it. One of the most important terms is the disclosure of election contributions and expenses, over $100 at least, because we all recognize that turning the spotlight on election finances is a deterrent to corruption. It can mean that citizens know what is going on and whether anybody is influenced by large contributions.

I think this short and simple bill is incomplete without adding to the extension of the term from two to three years a provision requiring this kind of disclosure, if we are to ensure better and more honest municipal government. I do not think the three-year term should be adopted without that part of the bargain being spelled out, without making municipal politicians accountable for the financing of their elections in the same way as we are accountable at this level under the provincial Election Finances Reform Act. I would like to see an outright limit on expenses as well, which we do not have under the provincial Election Finances Reform Act, but at least we should start with disclosure of both contributions and expenditures. I want to propose an amendment to section 2.

The Deputy Chairman: I suggest to the member, if she is making an amendment to section 2, we will deal with section 1 and then proceed to section 2 after section 1 has been dealt with.

Ms. Bryden: I am sorry. I wish to make an amendment to section 1.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2) Every candidate shall file with the clerk within the 30 days after the polling day a statement disclosing,

(a) the candidate's total revenues and expenditures relating to the election;

(b) each of the candidate's expenditures relating to the election that exceed $100; and

(c) the names and addresses of all persons who made election contributions in the form of money or goods to a value of $100 or more."

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order:

As I understand it, the deputy chairman asked us to discuss section 1, and the member for Beaches-Woodbine got up and said she had some disagreement with section 1. She then proceeded to speak about it. Following that, she made an amendment to section 2, which was distributed to us some weeks ago. We have not got to section 2 yet. The member then said she was going to change section 1. I am not sure what section she is talking about.

The Deputy Chairman: The member has just presented it to become part of section 1, as subsection (2) within that. We are discussing An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, dealing with change of term, and I have to rule the member's amendment out of order. It is not pertinent or germane to the motion before the House.

Ms Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I cannot see that it is opposite to the statement about change of term. It is simply an addition to the provisions regarding the extension of the term from two years to three years. As I pointed out, the parliamentary assistant had said the bill has certain objectives that are not spelled out. I am simply spelling out what are the means of achieving those objectives.

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate you are trying to make a point of order, but you are adding another dimension or another aspect to the bill, and I am ruling that out of order. The matter could be the subject of a separate bill perhaps, but it is not, in my opinion, a part of the bill before the House right now. Is there any further discussion on section 1?

Mr. Newman: I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that you refuse to accept any amendment to section 1.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member will recognize that this amendment is taking it outside of the context in which it has been presented. If you have any other amendment, you may present it.

Mr. Newman: We are dealing with An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act. Regardless of whether what she refers to is included in section 1 or not, she wishes it to be added to subsection 1. I think it is a quite reasonable suggestion that disclosure as well as limits be included there.

We discussed this in first reading of the bill and it is extremely important. We would be instituting a new provision in municipal elections that would allow one to know who contributed as well as the amount contributed. If you do not allow that amendment, the individual who can raise the greatest amount of money will be the one who has the best opportunity of winning.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have ruled it is out of order. Therefore, I suggest that further discussion of your ruling is not in order.

The Deputy Chairman: I wanted to give an opportunity to the member for Windsor-Walkerville to complete his point of order. He has done so and my ruling stands. The amendment presented by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has been declared out of order. The motion before the House deals with what is printed. Are there any other comments on section 1?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I regret that this has been ruled out of order. think that from time to time we should have an opportunity for discussion --

The Deputy Chairman: Before the honourable member goes too far, we are dealing with --

Mr. Epp: I have not gone far enough yet. You do not even know what my speech is going to be. You should not rule me out of order before you hear me.

The Deputy Chairman: I would be very pleased to listen to the honourable member.

Mr. Epp: You are being very presumptuous. I find that surprising in a man coming from the great metropolitan area of Toronto and with the skills, ability, intelligence and education you have.

The Deputy Chairman: I present to the honourable member the same point of view I have already expressed, that adding a new principle to the bill, as has been suggested in the amendment, is out of order. My ruling will stand.

Mr. Epp: I will speak on the principle. The point I want to make is that the government is so hidebound by its tendency not to give any leeway to the opposition that it will not let it suggest any amendments when it wishes to make minor, or even major, alterations to a particular bill. It only deals with those clauses that deal with exactly what has been discussed in caucus, in cabinet or in policy meetings. It brings in only that very narrow piece of the bill that the government wants to change. It will not permit us on any particular occasion to --

The Deputy Chairman: I call the honourable member to order.

Mr. Epp: I am in order.

The Deputy Chairman: You are dealing with an issue outside of the context of the bill.

Mr. Epp: I am dealing with the context of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: In dealing with the principle of the bill --

Mr. Epp: I am dealing with the context of the bill on a broader scale.

The Deputy Chairman: I must tell the honourable member that according to the rules of the House we are in committee of the whole going through the reading of a bill. Legitimate amendments and comments on the bill, as printed, are welcomed by the House, and this is the opportunity for that.

Mr. Epp: The point I am trying to make is that the bill is so narrow you do not give the opposition ample opportunity to discuss the range of options that should be available when dealing with 835 municipalities in this province. Those municipalities are very important to this province. You are saying they are not very important; therefore, you give us a very narrow range of options to deal with that particular bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honour- able member for his comments. I do believe we are dealing with a specific bill and the principles that lie herein and not additional principles. I will ask for any further discussion or debate on section 1.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, in deference to your high position and your importance to this Legislature I will leave it. Nevertheless, I do think you are in error in making that decision.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I might just refer the member for Waterloo North to standing order 86 which says very clearly in regard to amendments to bills in committee of the whole House, that bills may be amended "if they are relevant to the subject matter of the bill." The subject matter of this bill, as laid out in the explanatory note, is the extension of the term from two years to three years.

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps honourable members will realize we are just dealing with the term of office. Is there any further debate on section 1 of this particular bill before the House?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to that point of order, I want to draw to your attention that we are speaking about the terms of municipal politicians. As the honourable member has adequately pointed out, standing order 86 indicates we should deal with something very relevant. Certainly the expenditures of politicians in being elected to a three-year term, as opposed to a two-year term, are relevant to that point. I cannot see it being irrelevant as you are ruling. I think you are in error and I only wish you would admit this error in the presence of all these people so that we can deal with the amendment in hand.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honour- able member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this bill. I particularly wanted to say a few words because there are a number of people in the gallery from Scarborough North who are here tonight to see --

Mr. Epp: Is that relevant to this bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. They are here tonight to see some of the important business that this House does. I am sure that of all the issues we could have picked for the agenda tonight, this is one they are most interested in.

I heard the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) say she was opposed to section 1, but I would gather, after her amendment was ruled out of order, she is probably in favour of section 1 now. Still, when I heard her say she was opposed, I felt I should say something about what is the substance of section 1.

I think many of these people from Scarborough North, whom we are very pleased to have here tonight, would want to hear about this particular amendment.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order: You can't talk about it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sure they would also be very pleased to know -- and I have heard you congratulated once already -- that I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on being in the chair tonight because you come from the area of Markham, just north of Scarborough and you have to travel through Scarborough all the time. We are very pleased that is so.

Mr. Epp: I fail to see how the fact that you have to travel through Scarborough is relevant to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am coming to that.

Mr. Epp: On the same point of order: I have not been given the same latitude you are giving him.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order: it is obvious that this bill will have as much effect on the people of Scarborough as anywhere else.

Mr. McClellan: On the same point of order: Are all these people delegates?

The Deputy Chairman: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may carry on.

Mr. Conway: The most important question is, did you buy the dinner?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I didn't buy the dinner, but we are having refreshments afterwards. If you would like to come over and mingle with them and have a word, we would be happy.

8:20 p.m.

Section 1 provides specifically for the change in term for municipal elections from two years to three years. This is an important change. I want to say in this House I support this change. I have heard it mentioned around this province that when I was responsible for municipal affairs, which I was until last summer, I was opposed to a three-year term. In fact, I am in favour of a three-year term. I say that notwithstanding that I know there are a number of people, probably many of them in the gallery tonight, who are not thoroughly convinced this is a forward step.

There are a couple of things that recommend this section to us. First of all, increased voter turnout was mentioned. Anything we can do to increase voter turnout is a good thing, particularly increased voter turnout while saving money. Under this provision, within six years we will have had two elections rather than three. Across this province, probably a couple of million dollars or more will be saved because of this step. Measured against that must be --

Mr. Laughren: The purchase of Suncor.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have already purchased Suncor. We are not talking about that and I want to keep in order tonight.

Measured against that must be whether the saving is not worth the fact we are only going to have two elections rather than three.

Mr. Conway: Bishop Strachan and the Family Compact had the ultimate solution.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What I am saying is there are many people here tonight, I am sure, who recall when we had a one-year term in this province. In the first elections I worked in, I recall elections were held on New Year's Day, which meant one could not go to any New Year's Eve parties because one was too busy getting ready for the election the next day.

We moved from that to elections in late November and early December. We moved from one year to two years. We moved to a uniform election day in this province, the first Monday in December. We moved to three-year terms in Metropolitan Toronto and in the regions. Then we moved back from three-year terms to a uniform two-year term in this province. This was all basically done with the idea of increasing voter turnout and increasing voter interest in municipal elections.

The fact is it has not worked that well. There are other advantages to this whole process. There is the whole idea of long-term planning, fiscal planning and long-term restraint by municipal councils. There is the fact that once they are elected they can settle down to a three-year program. They can save money by cutting out one election every six years. I think this will increase voter turnout, but we will not know until it has been tried for a while.

These all outweigh what are still valid arguments on the other side that remaining with a two-year term would be satisfactory. I do not think it is a black and white, "you are right, I am wrong" situation. But when one balances them off, moving as we are from a two-year term, as we did from a one-year term a number of years ago, is a sane and sensible step in this province.

I wanted to get that on the record tonight because I felt there were some people who believed I was somehow opposed to the three-year term but was going along with it merely because it was government policy which, of course, is exactly right. I would go along with it anyway, but I just want you to know that I believe we should change to the three-year term. It is a progressive step in this province. Accepted in that spirit by the municipal politicians of this province, it can make for better government for all of us.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I realize this is not a debate on second reading, but when I read the final subordinate clause of the explanatory note, "the election to which is governed by the act," I interpret that to mean that part of the principle of the bill is the government of municipal elections. Therefore, I would argue, with respect, that the amendment of the member for Beaches-Woodbine was within the ambit of the principle of the bill and in the language of standing order 86 within the title of the bill, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Again, I am not wanting to quibble or quarrel, but I do feel that the bill before us is sufficiently broad in its ambit to permit a discussion of the amendment put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. There seems to be agreement within the other opposition party that that would be a useful thing to do and that it is an important and significant amendment. I would ask again that the member be allowed to put her amendment and that we have a discussion about it.

I will not belabour the point. This has been an interesting statute because all three parties have expressed agreement with the principle of the three-year term, but a minority of speakers have spoken in support of the three-year term. I shudder to think what would happen if the bill came to a free vote. At any rate, I am pleased to support the principle of the three-year term quite unequivocally.

Again, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider the decision taken with respect to my colleague's amendment because I feel, and I think my colleagues in the Liberal Party feel, that it is in order and that we should have an opportunity to debate it.

The Deputy Chairman: I will make a comment on the ruling. Because of the narrow nature of the bill within subsection 9(1) of the Municipal Elections Act dealing specifically with the term, I feel very comfortable with my own ruling. In spite of your statement, I am staying with that.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to correct the record: The minister mentioned that I had said I was opposed to the three-year term. What I said was that I was opposed to the clause in its present form, unamended. In the second reading debate I certainly made it quite clear that I thought that the three-year term is a step in the right direction but that it is incomplete without clauses such as are in my amendment where we do have disclosure of contributions and expenditures, as we do at the federal and provincial level. I do not see why municipal politicians should be exempt from that kind of public disclosure so that the voters know what is going on.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want to refer directly to the proposition put forward by the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells). He said that the main reason he is supporting the bill is the hope that it could lead to --

The Deputy Chairman: If there is going to be further debate on that issue, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Di Santo: I will come to the point of order.

The Deputy Chairman: Quickly, thank you.

Mr. Di Santo: He said it will probably increase the voter turnout. I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine is right when she says that unless this amendment is completed with --

The Deputy Chairman: I understand what you are coming at and I do not accept your point of order.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there are many members of this House who support the three-year term, but I want to speak against it. I feel that if there was a free vote in the Legislature this bill would not pass. I have some serious concerns because I know when we are elected as members of this Legislature we are not guaranteed a three-year term. I was elected in 1975, and we went to the polls a year and a half later.

There is one question I want to ask the minister. I have received many letters on this and I think there should be some consideration given to it. I am sure there are many people here in the galleries tonight who are cottage owners. There is a very great concern on the part of the people who are cottage owners and want to participate in the municipal vote in this province. They are very concerned with municipal affairs that are taking place in the areas outside the great area and suburbs of Toronto.

I want to ask the minister what consideration is being given to accommodating the people who are cottage owners outside the Metro area so they can exercise their franchise by moving the date, perhaps to the Saturday of Thanksgiving, so that they can participate before the cottage is closed up and they move back to the city until the next spring.

8:30 p.m.

If we are going to make sure that everyone has a full opportunity to participate, and we should be encouraging as much participation as possible, one thing this government must do is make sure that every opportunity is given to these people to participate in municipal elections.

I am asking the minister what consideration is being given and whether he will consider changing the voting date in order to accommodate the many thousands of people in this province. I am sure many in the minister's riding are cottage owners elsewhere in the province and wish to participate in the election process.

The Deputy Chairman: I am concerned as to who is the correct person to answer your questions. Possibly the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing should be the one.

Mr. Eakins: I was thinking he might be a future minister. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Rotenberg: From your mouth to Bill's ear.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for giving my speech of March 16 when we had second reading, because it will save the House a lot of time in that I will not have to reiterate all the reasons we should have a three-year term.

I would point out that she may use the term "a bargain with municipal politicians," but this is not a bargain with municipal politicians. This is a unilateral action on the part of the government at the almost unanimous request of municipal politicians. We do hope that with the three-year term the municipal politicians will be able to do their job better and more responsibly. But it is not, in those terms, a bargain with municipal politicians.

I would point out to the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) that one of the reasons election day was moved from the first Monday in December back to the second Monday in November was to accommodate the point he has raised. At this time, the government is not contemplating changing the election day further back into the year from the November date.

Mr. Chairman, you have ruled quite correctly that the amendment put forth by the member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order, but I would like to inform the House --

Mr. Stokes: In your opinion.

Mr. Rotenberg: In the former Speaker's opinion too. I am sure if he was in the chair he would rule the same.

Mr. Stokes: Do not presume to speak for me.

Mr. Rotenberg: I said if the former Speaker was in the chair, it is my opinion he would also rule it out of order.

I would like to point out to the members of the House that although legislation proposed by the ministry does not always reach the floor of the House at the time the ministry wants it to, it is the intention of this ministry, in this spring session, to bring forward a further amendment to the Municipal Elections Act that will include an amendment to the clause to which the member for Beaches-Woodbine refers.

If it comes forward to the House on schedule, as the ministry hopes it does, there will be an opportunity for this House to debate fully and completely the issue of municipal election expenses declarations, disclosures, and so on. It is my hope that will be happen before we rise in June.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate your ruling but I would like to say, had I been in your position, I would have been inclined to accept the amendment because of the explanatory note. Wherever the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) got his interpretation that it was not contained in the title, if he reads section 86 again he will get a better appreciation of what a legitimate amendment is, as opposed to the position he took.

I want to speak against the three-year term. I do so because when I hear the parliamentary assistant getting up and saying there is almost complete unanimity across the province by municipal elected officials, I do not know where he is coming from.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario does not enjoy the unanimous support of the people in northern Ontario or in rural Ontario generally. I want to tell you why, Mr. Chairman. If you --

An hon. member: Tell it to them.

Mr. Stokes: Would you be quiet? That is what I am trying to do.

If you look at the voting patterns and the number of people who are attracted to municipal elections in Ontario, I would dare say that if you got a 40 per cent turnout in most municipal elections, you would think there was a great body of support for what was going on at the municipal level.

In a lot of communities in the north, for reeve and council, for hydro commission and school boards, acclamations are much more prevalent than are contested elections for positions. I get letters from reeves and mayors in northern Ontario saying they think this is going to make people shy away from aspiring to municipal office because it would commit them to a task of trying to look after the administrative and legislative responsibilities of their communities for a period of three years as opposed to two. It is difficult enough to get people to run in municipal elections when it involves a two-year commitment and it is a genuine concern.

It is not because they are opposed to change, but because of their experience with the problem and their inability to attract people to accept the responsibility of municipal government even for a two-year term. We can readily appreciate how much more concerned they are going to be and how much more reluctant people are going to be to commit themselves to a three-year term.

Since the government House leader wanted to vary from the contents of this bill for just a moment, for his own purposes -- and I do not blame him; if there were 400 people here from my riding association I think I would be inventive enough to think of a reason to remind all members of the House of their presence.

If the parliamentary assistant wanted to reflect on what all of the people throughout Ontario thought about this piece of legislation, he might have thought of being a little bit flexible. We have different ordinances, different regulations, different laws in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario for very reasonable and very legitimate reasons.

He could have been more inventive because there is a lot of opposition to this concept of a three-year term for municipal government, and he knows for a fact that their concerns are legitimate concerns in the context. I am sure if he wanted to share his correspondence with us, he would admit that is the case.

I wonder what the chairman would say if I wanted to move an amendment to the appropriate section of this bill to have it apply to all of those municipalities south of the French River so that we would maintain the status quo in northern Ontario. I am wondering whether or not -- and I am not going to move that motion --

Mr. Rotenberg: It would be in order but I would not support it.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: If the parliamentary assistant and minister responsible for introducing this bill wanted to do something positive and to cater to the wishes of the majority of the people in the province, given the kind of feedback they have had, I think they would bring in the amendment that this three-year term would apply only south of the French River. I would like to hear what the parliamentary assistant has to say about it.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the position taken on the ruling of the chair. I want to bring to the attention of the chair, the parliamentary assistant and other members that a week ago we dealt with Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto. Under section 8, there was a similar amendment to that moved by the New Democratic Party member suggesting there should be some accountability for election expenditures relating to municipal elections and their financing.

I want to read to the chair the amendment proposed for the Toronto bill, where it deals with the selection of the candidate in the Municipal Elections Act:

"(b) Contributions means any contributions in the form of money or goods or services or a combination thereof in excess of $100 to the election campaign of a candidate, but does not include any goods produced by voluntary unpaid labour or any service performed by an individual voluntarily for the candidate without compensation from any source; and provisions for limitations on election expenses by or on behalf of a candidate or any class or classes of candidates, require approval of each such expenditure, and the total expenditure be filed with the clerk of the corporation within such a time and such a form as may be set out in the bylaws."

The city of Toronto has requested that in the Toronto bill. Perhaps it is the forerunner in many areas of municipal bylaws and municipal legislation, but I was astonished by the parliamentary assistant when he said he plans on bringing in a further amendment to this bill to include such amendment moved by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. If that is the case, I suggest the bill should be withdrawn tonight. There is not that much need to expedite it tonight if we are going to bring in amendments.

Considering the proposed amendment by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and with the proposal on the Toronto bill, I would suggest that is the proper time to reintroduce the changes in the Municipal Act, moving it from a two-year to a three-year term. I support the proposed amendment. I supported the one in committee dealing with the proposal put forward by the city of Toronto in its private bill.

It is an indication that municipalities are concerned about the expenditures of candidates during a municipal election. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant when we can expect this new proposed amendment to the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I took part in this debate at some length on second reading. I expressed an opinion at that time in support of the two-year term in opposition to the three-year term. This is the strangest debate I have seen on any bill since I have been in this Legislature. When we debated on second reading, the majority of members of the House spoke against it --

Mr. Samis: Especially over there.

Mr. Swart: Especially over there. I am wondering tonight if the back-benchers are going to get up and express their opinions on this again. Are they going to have the same courage shown by some members on this side and some members over there to at least express their individual opinions? After all, they have municipalities and ratepayers back in their areas who want them to stand up and express opinions on their behalf in this Legislature. I look for some of them to get up to take part in this debate in opposition to this.

It was rather significant, after the majority of people in this House spoke against the three-year term, that when it came to the vote no one stood up in opposition to it at that time. That was very strange. Perhaps strangest of all are the comments from the member for Scarborough North.

He will recall that we had some private conversations about the two or the three-year term. He will remember he made comments in this House and in the estimates that he was in opposition to the three-year term. While he was responsible for municipal affairs, he would not introduce a bill to institute the three-year term. When he got up and spoke tonight in support of the three-year term, to put it mildly I was surprised.

I suppose everybody can change their minds on an issue like that, but it is such a total about-face. I think he may be worth wooing to bring over to this side of the House. If he can change his mind as thoroughly in that way, perhaps he can change his mind enough to join the reasonable approach of the New Democratic Party and come into our caucus.

I remember he said earlier there would be a loss of accountability if we went to a three-year term from a two-year term. I do not think I am misinterpreting anything the minister said at that time. He said there would be fewer people involved because they have the chance to run every three years instead of every two years. He said now there will be an increase in voter turnout.

I can remember the arguments put forward at the time we were debating this issue two, three, four or five years ago, that the voter turnout would likely be less if we only had an election every three years, because we lose sensitivity towards and consciousness of elections. So it has been a strange debate to this time.

I am wondering, in view of all the expressions made here by the members, if perhaps the suggestion by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is not a wise one. Perhaps the bill should not be proceeded with tonight but should be tabled or withdrawn and all of us should have another look at it in our caucuses. We might find that the suggestion of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) would find favour in many areas of this province, and may I suggest not just perhaps north of the French River, but other areas too. Where there are not dense populations, we might find the majority of people, the majority of members, might like some changes.

We should accept the suggestion from the member for Erie and hold this bill in abeyance and not pass something tonight that we may regret in the years ahead and for which the back-benchers, particularly in the Conservative Party across the way, will have to be continually answering when they did not believe in it.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate on this bill on second reading and it was rather strange that so many people got up, many from the government side, objecting to a three-year term. There were a number from the opposition side who also objected, but no one objected when the Speaker called for those in favour of second reading of it. No one really objected.

It is rather strange, now that we are into committee of the whole -- maybe it is because of the audience and because the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), who was the minister in charge of this for a number of years, was against a three-year term, but now we have a new minister who says, "Fine, we are going to go for the three-year term," while we have heard others say we should go for a two-year term.

8:50 p.m.

I am from a small rural riding of 11 municipalities. I read in the newspapers the interviews of a number of people on what they thought of a three-year term, and if they were going to run for re-election this fall. Most of them said, "I might have considered it, but I am not sure now with the three year-term." Frankly I think most of them will be running whether it is a two-year or three-year term; I happen to know a little bit about politicians -- and there goes one now, walking in front of me, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). What concerns me is that we are going backwards and forwards in this legislation.

When I sat down here this evening, I wrote out a little amendment. I am not going to present it, Mr. Chairman, but I want you to listen to it; it is probably what a lot of people would like but do not have the gumption to get up and say. I am willing to read out what a lot of the members here would like to have, but I am not prepared to put it and I will tell you why. I am from a rural, small-town area. We accept, sometimes, what the big cities want because we are one province -- and we are one country since last Saturday and I am proud of it. In my first speech in this Legislature I said I was a Canadian first and an Ontarian second and I stand behind that today.

To get back to my amendment, it would read, "An election shall be held in accordance with this act in each municipality with a population of less than 50,000 in 1982 and every second year thereafter, and every third year in a municipality with a population of over 50,000."

That would probably answer the problem with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They had a split. The majority carried it, although the small municipalities were against it. But we are pretty broad-minded in the rural areas. We feed the people of Ontario and many other people throughout the world. We are willing to accept the three-year term, so let us get on with the business.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant mentioned that the present timing of the municipal election accommodates the cottage owners. Most cottage owners close their cottages on Thanksgiving and the present timing does not accommodate that. You would have to move the date of the election back to the fourth Monday in October in order to have an advance poll during Thanksgiving weekend.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. This party recommended, at the time we set that November date, that it should be moved back to October but the government rejected it then and it is still rejecting it. It is still disfranchising most cottage owners, who do have quite a stake in the community where their cottage is located. I think this is another reason for adopting the suggestion of the member for Erie to refer this bill back and have the government bring in a new bill which will cover the various points which have been raised here tonight.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to address a point that the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights, raised earlier. I think it is very important that this particular item be clarified. I have been in favour of the three-year term, as has this party, for some years. It is good to see that the government and the third party have finally caught up with that idea.

I respect the views of those people who feel they should continue with the two-year term because honest differences can be held by the members of this Legislature. However, I want to go back to the point that the parliamentary assistant raised earlier when he said that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the body that represents 835 municipalities, unanimously approved the three-year term.

I think he misled this House unintentionally. He and everyone in this House knows that particular resolution came before AMO on a number of occasions over a number of years and that it passed only narrowly, with the representatives from the larger municipalities having the majority of votes. Certainly that is where most of the votes came from, although some votes came from the smaller municipalities, and it passed by fairly narrow margins in the last few years. At no time was there unanimous support for the resolution to change from two to three years.

I would give the member for Wilson Heights an opportunity to retract that statement because I think he misled the 400 people who were in the galleries, plus the people who might read Hansard.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I believe the words I said, certainly the words I intended to say to reply to the member for Waterloo North, were "virtually unanimously." The member is correct, this issue has been before AMO several times. The last time was at the convention of August 1980 where the vote was several hundred to six. That was the recorded vote at AMO. "Virtually unanimously" were the words I thought I used, the words I intended to say, and I believe the vote of several hundred to six is virtually unanimous. That was the vote the last time it was before AMO.

To reply very briefly to some of the legitimate questions that have been asked of me on this bill: To the member for Nipigon, no, the government would not support a split at the French River. We believe the people in northern Ontario are as entitled to the benefits of the three-year term as are the people of southern Ontario.

To the member for Erie, I would say it is not within my control as to when this other bill concerning municipal elections will be before the House. All I can say is that it is the intention of the ministry to have it before the House this spring. It will have a number of technical amendments to the Municipal Act as well as something on election expenses. That is the intention of the ministry and, if it comes through the procedure properly, it will be before the House at that time.

The reason I believe this act should come ahead of any other act is that I think those municipal candidates who are now in office or who are thinking of running for office should have at a reasonably early time, as early as possible, the knowledge as to what the term of office will be for the next election so they can make their plans as to whether or not they will run. This is why, as a ministry of the government, we felt this bill should come forward as soon as possible so that will be settled in the minds of all candidates and potential candidates for the forthcoming November election, which is really only six months and several weeks away.

The member for Welland-Thorold indicated that a majority of the members spoke against the bill. I would point out to him that is inadvertently inaccurate. I just read the Hansard and counted -- I may have been one out -- and out of the 23 members who spoke some spoke for it, so to say a majority of members spoke against the bill is not quite correct. More important, as the member for Essex North pointed out, the House carried it without a dissenting vote.

Mr. Martel: But they have been whipped into line over there.

Mr. Rotenberg: Over there, too; none of your people voted against it either.

To the member for Essex North, I would say the government has indicated on many occasions that we feel there should be a uniform term throughout the province. I respect the suggestion the member has made about large and small municipalities but I would point out that at the last AMO convention, where there was virtually a unanimous vote, many people from the small municipalities supported the three-year term and we feel it should be a uniform term throughout the province.

Those, I think, are the answers to the questions asked of me.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 10 reported.

9 p.m.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 175, An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement. Under normal circumstances, I would have wanted to and would have made a brief, informal statement prior to going into the clause-by-clause discussion, which is really why we are here in the committee of the whole House tonight.

With the permission of the committee, I want to read a brief but, if I can use the words, reasonably formal statement, primarily because of some of the undertakings made at the committee on its last day where some commitments were made that I would make such a statement at this time.

Frankly, I just want to make sure that we do cover each of those important matters. In the normal course of affairs, I guess there will be opportunities for a less formal exchange as we get into the clause-by-clause discussion or before we get into it.

I want to commend the standing committee on social development for its thoughtful and constructive consideration of Bill 175 during February. I have become familiar with the record of the early part of those hearings and participated on the last day. I have been able to appreciate not only the detailed concerns of the members but also the spirit of co-operation among them as they concluded their deliberations.

In the standing committee a consensus was reached on a number of matters. For me, the most important consensus concerned the clear wish of both members and witnesses that the wounds suffered during a sad chapter in the history of a great Canadian cultural institution be healed and that an era of renewed understanding and constructiveness begin. In that connection, I can tell this committee that I share this wish and that a number of steps have been taken to fulfil it.

I am pleased to report to members of this committee that a memorandum of understanding between the government and the board, which I and the chairman of the board, Mr. J. Allyn Taylor, have recently signed, addresses the concerns of the standing committee. This memorandum, fashioned by ourselves and the board, has been in the making for more than a year. Following its approval by Management Board of Cabinet, I will be tabling it in the Legislature.

Obviously this agreement of intent cannot prescribe the good will that harmony requires, but it can and does set out a framework for ensuring the fundamentally necessary communication among the board, the local community, the many interested citizens in Ontario and the government. This it does in several ways.

First, the parties agree that the trustees and the director are responsible for "fostering close and positive relations between the collection and the local community."

Second, the memorandum establishes information-sharing arrangements between the collection and the people of the province by making collection policies, practices and priorities available to the public and by making appropriate minutes of future board meetings available to the public as well.

Third, it formalizes existing information-sharing arrangements between the collection and the government by continuing the senior liaison committee and by prescribing the kinds of policy, practice, priority and financial information that will flow between the collection and the government.

In addition to these key provisions, designed to help ensure that the harmony and understanding we all want are achieved, the memorandum of understanding addresses several other matters.

Through this document, the ministry and the board agree that the conflict of interest guidelines that cabinet has approved for persons appointed to boards and agencies will be applied to the collection. The collection will also follow the intent of the guidelines for employees that are set out in the Ontario manual of administration; and the collection will establish and be guided by a code of ethics for trustees and staff which reflects generally accepted standards of conduct among professional art museums.

I might remind honourable members that last year the board adopted the code of ethics for gallery professionals and gallery governing bodies of the Canadian Art Museum Directors' Organization. However, the new director of the collection, Mr. Michael Bell, will also be presenting to the board for consideration in due course a statement of ethics specific to the needs of the McMichael Canadian Collection.

These are some of the relevant items forming the memorandum of understanding, which I believe will indicate clearly the government's intention and the board's desire that important matters be addressed. This written memorandum is a tangible and constructive expression of the understanding that already exists.

Following this, I would like to mention some of the activity that has taken place since the standing committee's hearings, particularly with reference to concerns about the relationship of the McMichael Canadian Collection with the community of Kleinburg and the specialized communities it serves.

At the request of the board, the director is developing plans to establish an advisory committee to be a link with its various communities of interest. It will consist of representatives of art galleries and museums in Ontario, contemporary visual artists, scholars, art educators, the organization known as the Friends of the McMichael Collection and the local municipality. Mr. Bell expects to be meeting with individuals representing these communities in the near future to discuss his plans further and move towards the formation of this committee.

The mandate of the advisory committee will be to bring the concerns of the respective communities to the director's attention, to act as a sounding board for community concerns and to represent the concerns of the collection itself to the respective communities.

Mr. Bell has also had a meeting with the merchants of Kleinburg to involve them in the collection's future plans as they affect the business people of Kleinburg. The collection has engaged a marketing consultant, who has been asked to make recommendations that consider the Kleinburg community as a whole.

In a related area, Mr. Bell has been working with his own staff and has now completed a statement of objectives and expected results for the collection that he will be presenting to the board of trustees at its next meeting. All honourable members will recognize the importance of a clear statement of direction to govern the operations of any organization. These steps are an indication that the board and the new director are anxious to move forward in a positive and constructive way.

There was one other matter that was of considerable concern to members of the standing committee which I would like to address. It has to do with the question of what was referred to during the course of the hearing as "the anonymous allegations." I read the transcripts of the hearings where they refer to this question. Certainly I and others on this side share the concerns of the members.

Consequently, I undertook to consult with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on the matter of the identity of the person who made the allegations to determine whether there has been a breach of any law, rule or regulation.

I have a letter. It is a short letter and, if I may, I will read it into the record. It is from the Attorney General in response to that question directed by me on behalf of the members of that committee.

I might say first, although we were not asked to do it, that I and members of the senior staff of my ministry undertook to satisfy ourselves that no one in our ministry was responsible for putting together these allegations. We did so and are satisfied there is no one on our staff who did that.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read the relevant two paragraphs from the letter from the Attorney General.

"On February 17, 1982, Mr. Renwick requested that the matter of the identity of the person who made certain 'anonymous allegations' against Mr. McMichael be turned over to me to determine whether there had been a breach of any law, rule or regulation. Senior crown counsel have reviewed transcripts of the committee hearings as well as correspondence delivered to the committee, copies attached."

That correspondence referred to the two letters that were discussed at the last committee hearing. Members present would remember those two letters.

"On the basis of that material, counsel have concluded that it does not disclose a breach of the Criminal Code or provincial statute. Accordingly, there is no basis at this time to ask the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate the source of the anonymous allegations. If any further information surfaces which discloses the commission of an offence, I will be happy to reopen this matter."

This letter was signed by the Attorney General.

9:10 p.m.

Before we move on to the bill which we are here to examine, I would like to say that the deliberations of the standing committee on social development have had a distinct influence on my own thinking about this Bill 175. As a result of that, I wish to speak to the matter of accumulating funds for purchasing new art works for the collection.

Since 1972, the McMichael Canadian Collection Act has provided for the establishment and maintenance of a special fund to be used only for the purchase of art. Allocations or contributions to this fund come in one of four ways: from donations, from the sale of works of art belonging to the collection, from interest earned on the funds invested and from the net profits of the collection's gift shop, the latter being very significant in dollar figures.

As honourable members know, Bill 175 proposes to make the money from the gift shop profits available to the collection's general fund. That proposal is contained in section 3 of the bill that this committee now has before it. It was designed to permit the board access to money in the special fund so that the collection could contribute to the renovation program now under way at the gallery.

Also, the board had requested the flexibility to employ the gift shop funds in the best interests of the collection at any given time, whether that be for art acquisition, special projects such as the renovations, or expanded programming for the public -- all part of maintaining and improving an important cultural resource.

At standing committee, however, members expressed concern about this clause in the bill and the use of gift shop funds previously designated for art acquisition. I have given this concern much consideration and have decided that the $900,000 in principal and accumulated interest now in the fund, earned over the years primarily from the sale of items in the gift shop, should remain in that fund for art acquisition.

If the $900,000 were to remain in the fund as an endowment, which is what I am proposing, and the funds invested at 15 per cent, say, there would be about $135,000 available per year to purchase additional art. Of course, the capital would remain intact. Mr. Taylor and the collection's director, Michael Bell, assure me that such a permanent acquisition fund would be the envy of most galleries.

At the same time, I would not want to restrict the board from making its own decisions regarding the future wellbeing of the collection by stipulating how the collection should spend the profits from its gift shop, which amount to about $200,000 per year. Most other galleries do have this flexibility, giving them the opportunity, for example, to develop important educational and outreach programs for the public that might not otherwise be possible or to contribute to necessary renovations.

For that reason, I wish to propose an amendment to section 3 of Bill 175, which will give the board the flexibility in the future to allocate the funds from the gift shop to either the special fund or the general fund as it deems appropriate. I will move that amendment at the appropriate time.

I point out that gift shop proceeds could still be added to the special fund for art acquisitions should the board wish to do so, but money from the special fund could never be transferred to the general fund. I also hope, of course, that generous donors will add to the special fund over the years.

Finally, I want to speak to one last matter that was addressed at standing committee. This matter involves public access to documents that are related to the McMichael Canadian Collection Act as it will be amended by Bill 175.

During the standing committee's study, several members expressed the desire that various documents related to the McMichael Canadian Collection Act be pulled together in some kind of package. They were concerned that a number of documents referred to in the bill might not be readily accessible to the public.

To this end, we will be placing on deposit in the legislative library and in all of the depository public libraries around Ontario the 1965 agreement, the 1972 act, the 1980 agreement and other related documents, including the recent agreement between the board of trustees and Mr. and Mrs. McMichael.

In addition, arrangements have been made to include a note to readers of the Ontario Statutes Citator, which is the commercially produced companion to the Statutes of Ontario, when it refers to the passing of Bill 175. Unfortunately, I am informed that a note to readers, drawing attention to the deposited compendium, cannot be included in the statutes themselves. However, the ministry will ensure that reprints of the office consolidation of the McMichael Canadian Collection Act, as amended by Bill 175, will also contain this public notice.

At the same time, I acknowledge two other concerns of the members. One has to do with the number of documents that will be on record as comprising the law as it relates to the McMichael Canadian Collection. I am willing to consider the possibility of introducing new legislation at some future time that will consolidate and update the 1972 act.

I am also mindful of members' questions about the definition of the collection as the corporation, rather than the works of art themselves. I might point out that the McMichael Canadian Collection is made up of donations from many individuals. Members will recognize that I am not permitted to introduce an amendment to Bill 175 that does not relate to its clauses. However, I believe that at such future time as we consider new legislation, we can look at this concern as well.

As I said at the outset, I found the study of Bill 175 that was conducted by the standing committee on social development to be most thoughtful. A number of concerns were raised which I undertook to address. I look forward to the balance of this committee of the whole House deliberation and to third reading of Bill 175.

Mr. Chairman: I thank the minister, and I thank all members of the Legislature for their indulgence in allowing him an opening statement in committee of the whole House. I presume at this time we will go into clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Chairman, since there was a general statement, I wonder whether other members of the committee could make general comments on the statement as well.

Mr. Martel: Sure.

Mr. Conway: Undoubtedly.

Mr. Laughren: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman: The House agrees.

Mr. Edighoffer: I had the opportunity in committee of congratulating the new minister on his appointment, and I was glad to hear the round of applause he received from all members in attendance tonight.

I must agree with the minister that there was considerable thoughtful discussion in the committee. From the statement and the proposed memorandum of understanding, I am certain that the minister has given much careful consideration to trying to resolve the problems that have been created in the past.

I appreciate receiving this information in advance. However, I can see why the minister found it somewhat of a problem to try to solve all the problems and difficulties that have been created at the McMichael Canadian Collection.

He did make mention of the other agreements; for instance, the 1965 agreement and the original 1972 act. I do not know whether the minister is aware that the Premier (Mr. Davis) wrote a letter to a great number of people in Ontario early in this year. It would be important to table it, because I recall that during the original discussion of the 1972 legislation it seemed to be most important and effective when the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) made considerable comment regarding the 1965 agreement. That was most helpful in discussions following that time.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to place this letter on the record, because it sets out very clearly the Premier's thoughts on this legislation. I believe this letter went out to a number of people in Ontario.

9:20 p.m.

"Dear Mr. Blank:

"Your letter of December 14 to Mr. William Kelly, chairman of the PC Ontario Fund, has been brought to my attention. I am sorry to learn that you no longer feel you are able to support the PC Party.

"Permit me, if I may, to take this opportunity to respond to the concerns you have raised regarding the McMichael Canadian Collection. I hope that my comments will help to clear up any misunderstanding about the government's position.

"Firstly, I wish to point out that the Ontario government recognizes and shares the high regard which Ontarians hold for the McMichael collection and the building which houses this great collection of Canadian art. We are indeed fortunate that this unique and beautiful facility now belongs to the people of Ontario through the generous gift made by Mr. and Mrs. McMichael.

"However, I am concerned about the misinformation held by a number of people regarding the bill introduced in the Legislature on November 26 by the Minister of Culture and Recreation and the government's intent concerning the original agreement of 1965. My comments and the enclosed statement by Mr. Baetz hopefully will demonstrate to you that, contrary to recent allegations, the government does not intend to break its agreement with the McMichaels or destroy the character of the collection or the gallery building.

"As you are aware, an agreement was made between the McMichaels and the Ontario government when in 1965 Mr. and Mrs. McMichael gave their home, land and collection of art to the people of Ontario through the crown. This agreement made it clear the collection was to be preserved, maintained and developed for the public benefit. At that time, provision was made for the crown's agent, consisting of a five-member advisory committee, including the McMichaels, two others and a chairman, to manage and control the collection.

"By 1972, the collection had grown into a major public institution and it was felt that it would be managed best in the public interest by a corporation which was created by An Act to establish the McMichael Canadian Collection. The act stipulated that a board of trustees, consisting of between five and nine members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, would be the responsible and accountable authority for the affairs of the collection. I also would add that Mr. and Mrs. McMichael were made members of the board for life. Furthermore, in the 1972 act, the intent and all the essential provisions of the 1965 agreement were restated.

"The amending bill presented by Mr. Baetz in the Legislature on November 26 will enshrine in statute several important matters and the amendments will help to ensure that the character of the collection is protected. I would also mention that just as the essential features of the collection were not undermined by the 1972 act, they will not be undermined by the bill to amend the act.

"A section of the amending act specifies for the first time in statute that the focus of the collection is the work of the Group of Seven, three of their contemporaries, the indigenous people and other people who have made contributions to the development of Canadian art. The bill states that works of art given to the collection cannot be sold without the donor's consent. A new position has been created by the amending act of founder director-emeritus and stipulates that Mr. McMichael occupy that position. Also the act will allow the collection to use revenues from its gift shop for general purposes.

"I should like to point out that under the 1972 act, paintings donated to the collection cannot be sold if an agreement between the donor and the collection prohibits such a sale. The amending act further limits the sale of art works donated to the collection, because they will always require the consent of the donor, unless an agreement stipulated otherwise.

"As I am sure you can appreciate, the building which houses this art collection, as a public gallery, must contain all the necessary measures to maintain the safety of the public and the collection from possibilities of fire and also to conserve the collection itself. In addition, there is a need to make all sections of the building accessible to disabled people so that they may enjoy the great cultural facility. Work has commenced to implement these measures, but, as Mr. Baetz has indicated, and contrary to reports, the public may rest assured that no changes will be made to the building which are not compatible with its aesthetic character. Additions and modifications will use the same materials as those from which the building originally was constructed.

"It would appear from the letters directed to me that a great deal of the misunderstanding over matters relating to the collection has arisen from an article by Mr. Pierre Berton which appeared in the Globe and Mail on November 17. Therefore, I have enclosed for your information a copy of the response to this article which was prepared by trustees of the collection.

"I realize your comments were made in genuine concern for our party and for the government and I hope you will accept my response as having been made in similar good faith.

"Sincerely, William G. Davis."

I wanted to put that on the record, because no doubt when further amendments to this bill come forward, this information will be helpful.

I was interested in hearing the minister's comments regarding the allegations we referred to in committee. I am glad to hear that his senior ministry officials have looked into the matter and have stated they feel no one from the ministry produced that information.

From the comments of the Attorney General that were read, I have to say I am not quite clear really as to whether there was much of a study. The minister has stated they looked over the minutes of the committee, and I wonder whether they did anything or asked any questions of any members of his ministry. I will let the member for Riverdale carry that one further.

I am concerned about the bill generally. The minister did say he hoped that in the near future he might be able to bring in another complete act. I certainly hope he will, because he talked of the agreement in 1965 and about the bill in 1972, when everyone thought there was an agreement as well. Then he talked about the amendment in 1981, and included in that amendment we now have an agreement dated in 1980, signed by the chairman of the board and Mr. McMichael. We will have a memorandum of understanding signed by the minister and the board of trustees. What about the agreement signed January 27, 1982, by Mr. and Mrs. McMichael and the board of trustees?

I appreciate that the minister sent over the proposed memorandum of understanding. I do not know how he wishes to handle that. I appreciate that it has not been tabled. I know there are a lot of questions in there that should be dealt with, and I will leave it in the hands of the chairman as to whether we can ask questions during committee.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

[Applause]

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, like the course of this bill, I think it is beginning to go on too long.

I want to make a couple of comments to the minister simply in response to his statement. The House should know that had it not been for the fortuitous event of a shift of cabinet responsibilities, this solution to the problem, if I can dignify it by that term, would never have come about. I suggest to the government that if it ever has another sensitive issue to bring before the assembly, it does not entrust it to the minister who originally introduced this bill into the House.

Anybody who bothered to read the proceedings of the committee dealing with this bill during the month of February would understand that the committee was totally immersed in an insoluble problem when the committee recessed on February 4. The shift in cabinet responsibilities took place, we reconvened on February 17 and the new minister, with the light which he always shows, was able to come to the committee and satisfy, I believe, in a very untidy and unhappy situation, its major concerns.

I do not know, but I believe and sense that the bill in substance solves the major concerns of the original donors of the collection to the province. I believe that to be the case. I emphasize that I have no special knowledge about it one way or the other.

9:30 p.m.

It is sufficient to say that in a very untidy result the minister has rescued it by the statement he made in the House this evening and by the draft at least of the memorandum of understanding he showed to my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and myself, and I am sure to the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), related to the relationship in defined terms between the ministry itself and the collection, setting out their mutual responsibilities and obligations. That in itself is an immense step forward in the governance of this most important collection and the interests of the people of the province.

I want to emphasize, in case members of the assembly were not aware of it, that the memorandum of understanding and any subsequent revisions of that memorandum will be tabled in the Legislature by the minister as and when they occur, so the assembly will be informed of any basic changes or any suggested changes in the arrangements of the mutual sharing of responsibilities. But the government of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of Ontario as the owner of the collection and the role of the board of the collection, the incorporated body whose duty as agent is to manage and look after the affairs of the collection, have very vital and important connections with this assembly.

The memorandum of understanding in the form I have seen it specifically states the minister will be responsible to this assembly and accountable to this assembly for the collection. I think the protection of the collection, the protection of the original donors of the collection, Robert and Signe McMichael, are, as best we can, solved by the statement made by the minister, the memorandum of understanding, and the failings of the legislation itself will, because of the minister's statement, in due course be rectified.

I could pick and choose. I could say tonight, if the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) was here, that his letter was a most unsatisfactory response to the concern of the members of the committee expressed in the committee. It was almost to say, "I want as Attorney General to wash my hands of this question." I will deal with that on another occasion. I am certainly not going to cavil about the particular way in which the Attorney General deals with serious matters that are referred to him by the ministry for consideration. I consider that response to be a totally inadequate response, not on behalf of the minister who fulfilled his undertaking, but in respect of the obligation of the Attorney General to deal with serious matters that were of concern to members of the committee.

As I say, I am not pretending for one single moment to cavil at any great length about all the past history that is involved in this. I want personally to thank the minister for the evident good faith with which he tried to cover in his statement to the House this evening all the concerns, as best we could express them in the committee, in order that this particular sorry tale could come to some reasonable end with anticipation that some good might come out of it. I do believe that the exercise in the committee of hearing the witnesses, those who came because they were in the employ of the ministry or in the employ of the collection, those who came because of their public interest in it and gave their views to the committee, did much to lay the groundwork of a very good future for the McMichael collection as an important ornament in the ownership of the government of this province.

I am prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the minister with respect to the establishment of the existing amount at present standing to the credit of the account, mainly from the sales in the gift shop, as a continuing endowment to be used for the purpose of purchase of other works of art. With that very reasonable and sensible compromise of a difficult problem I believe there will be some responsibility on the board of directors of the collection to enhance the quality of the collection by acquiring other works of art from time to time with their own funds.

There are many items that one could rehash. However, I am quite happy to see the bill speedily pass through the committee and become the law of the province governing that collection.

Mr. Hodgson: As the member for the area I would like to say a couple of words. First, I congratulate the new minister on the excellent public relations job he is doing. Second, I cannot let this opportunity pass without referring to the amount of effort the former minister -- and nobody knows that better than this member as I was in his office with delegations many times put forth to try to resolve this problem. Whether the members of this Legislature believe it or not, I know at firsthand that he did his very best to solve the problem of the McMichael Canadian Collection.

Mr. Conway: We have some firsthand evidence of just how hard he worked on some of those items.

Mr. Hodgson: I wonder if the member remembers what he said this afternoon about no more heckling.

I gave a full account of the McMichael Canadian Collection at Kleinburg two weeks ago tonight in my speech in the throne speech debate, so I will not go into that. I only ask one thing of the minister before I can support the bill that is put before us tonight and that is something that I asked for in the committee hearings last February, namely, that a member and resident of the Kleinburg community be appointed as a director of the McMichael gallery.

The McMichael gallery has the second largest attendance of any gallery in the whole of Canada. I think it fitting that someone from the Kleinburg community, in addition to Mr. and Mrs. Robert McMichael, who have done an excellent job and been so generous, be on that board. In that way Kleinburg can be kept informed of everything that affects the collection and the operation of the gallery. If the minister can give me that assurance, I can support this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Conway: I want to say a few words about the bill before us and to join with my colleagues the member for Perth and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) in extending best wishes to the new Minister of Citizenship and Culture. It is hard to add to the excellent remarks of the member for Riverdale, who has pointed out that after a protracted and acrimonious public debate, and an even more acrimonious private debate, after the new minister's appointment in early February the matter was quickly resolved.

I said in the committee, and I will repeat it tonight, that in my seven years here as a member, prior to the debate on Bill 175, I had no legislative interface, to use that marvellous bureaucratic word, with our cultural community. Bill 175 gave me the first such interface and I must say it was a truly remarkable set of hearings.

9:40 p.m.

I was reminded of just what kind of hearings those were a few days ago when an unmarked brown envelope arrived in my office containing that charming polemic by Sol Littman, entitled Controversy at the McMichael Gallery, from the Canadian Forum of March 1982. Of course, it was unsigned. It just struck me as a fitting way to end this wretched, rotten, miserable, mean-spirited business.

I do not really know any more today about some of the issues that interested me than I did when I started, but like Pontius Pilate, I am quite anxious to wash my hands of this entire rotten business in the hope that the new bill, the new spirit and the new minister have brought about a new order that will give this province a continued and very successful operation at Kleinburg. Certainly I want to wish the minister all the best in trying to repair what internally must be a very unfortunate situation. I just want to conclude my remarks tonight in that connection.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I must say that serving on that particular committee was a remarkable experience. I had never served on a committee before in which there was so little sense of partisanship going into it. There was a remarkable experience the very first day of the committee when it was announced that an agreement had been signed by the McMichaels, the board and the ministry, dated the end of January or the first of February, which put the committee hearings in a totally different light. For a few hours there was debate in the committee as to what extent we should proceed and what the debate would be about. I was very pleased that the committee did continue to debate the issue and to call witnesses because I think it was a very interesting process in which people came and expressed their views on what, as the member for Renfrew North has said, was a sorry state.

I prefer not to debate the antics of the former minister because I think it does not add to the debate this evening or to the way in which we regard this new bill. I am concerned, however, about the new bill. I do not think I have ever seen a piece of legislation in the 10-plus years I have been here which is built on sand in the way this is. It is built on agreements and memoranda. I do not know of any other such legislation. Perhaps there is other legislation which has been written the same way and I am just not aware of it. My secret hope all along was that the minister would be able to bring in a bill which wiped the slate clean and presented us with a bill that dealt with the McMichael Canadian Collection and all the matters that surrounded its entirety. That would be very nice.

I know that in his statement the minister has said he hopes that in the future there will be a revised bill which will do it all, but I am very unhappy with the way in which this bill is constructed. I am very unhappy with the references to matters other than the statutes. I defy anyone to pick up the minister's statement which he read tonight and make sense out of the references back to other matters. In terms of the way we pass legislation in this chamber, that to me is simply intolerable. I wish very much that we did not have to go through that because I think it is grossly unfair to anyone who wants to pursue the statute dealing with the McMichael collection.

There is no question whatsoever about people's affection for the McMichael collection. It is a remarkable collection and perhaps even more remarkable is the affection people feel towards that collection. There are not many threads running through Ontario about which most of us feel very strongly. The McMichael collection is one of them. I suspect that the ministers of the crown were surprised at the groundswell of support across Ontario for the collection when people felt it was threatened. I think that bodes very well for culture in this province.

As I stated some 10 years ago when the original bill was debated, my wish is that we could make this kind of collection more accessible to more people in more regions of the province. At that time I said, almost whimsically, we should launch a campaign of "art in a cart" and take it across Ontario. I still wish this kind of collection could be accessible to people in the most remote areas of Ontario because, after all, we are proud of those remote areas and we should make the people who live in those areas proud of their heritage and proud of the culture and history that is represented by the McMichael collection. It is one of those things that supersedes all sorts of other commitments that people have to Ontario.

I would urge the minister to take along, hard look at all the memoranda, the agreements, the previous legislation and so forth, and expedite the bringing before this chamber of a comprehensive piece of legislation that will deal with the McMichael collection in a way that will wipe the slate clean, that will put the McMichael collection in the form of a statute that we can all be proud of, and that people across Ontario will be able to pick up, read and comprehend.

Members of the Legislature have an inside knowledge of legislation and how it works, but to have that statement by the minister, which says more than the bill does, is in itself fundamentally wrong. It is wrong when the piece of legislation does not tell us as much as what the bill is based on tells us. When a statement to a bill tells us more historically and probably legally than the bill itself, then there is something wrong with that kind of draftsmanship. I hope that the minister without too much delay will be able to bring a new bill before us either in this session or next session.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, I think we would be remiss if we did not mention a little more about what went on before this bill was brought in this evening. I have noticed a lot of members here tonight have said they do not want to get into that, but I must say that it should serve as a bit of a warning to the minister. He should have better public relations than did the previous minister with the people of this province, with ministry staff and with the people of this Legislature. I believe that because of the problems we encountered in the last part of 1981 a great deal of damage has been done to people in the arts. The minister will need good public relations to make sure that people understand what this new bill is going to do and what is going to happen at Kleinburg.

Also, he will have to do something to encourage people who are ready to donate works of art and money for the purchase of such items. Not only the minister, but the government and the Premier (Mr. Davis) should never have let this go to the stage where it caused concern throughout this province. I and other members had people calling and wondering what the government was trying to do, whether these art objects were going to be sold, whether they were in danger and about all of the problems concerned with the situation.

9:50 p.m.

I wonder how it reached the position where we had the fighting we did among the people that were at Kleinburg, why these people were not talking to one another, why the previous minister and the Premier let things get to the stage they did. When it came to the committee, everything seemed to be solved. There was an agreement. I sometimes wonder about the pressure that must have been on those people and the health problems it must have caused. I hope the minister will approach this in a better way and that he will never let things get to the position they ended up in at that gallery.

A lot of blame should be placed not only on the management there, and possibly the McMichaels, but also on this government. If there were problems concerning humidity, fire regulations, access, billing and all these other things, why did it take so long to solve them? Why were solutions to these things not suggested before it all came to light?

We have the letter that was read this evening by the member about the Premier writing to try to clear up all these problems --

Interjections.

Mr. O'Neil: It was the Premier who wrote the letter. It was written on the Premier's letterhead, talking about donations to the Conservative Party. I would like a couple of comments from the minister on that.

I know there has been some concern shown by some of the other members in both of these parties on the investigation that was carried out. Again, I would like some comments from the minister regarding just how far the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) investigated this.

There was that kind of pressure brought on the McMichaels. They do not lack blame because there were problems there. I realize what was going on between them and the board, but the problems should never have gone to the point they did. I hope the minister will never again let something like that happen as far as this collection is concerned.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would be very disappointed, given this type of legislation, if you did not get a word from one of the members representing that great area of Ottawa, especially involving something as important as the arts and the McMichael collection.

I did not have the benefit of listening to some of the comments on this legislation of my colleagues who preceded me. I apologize for that. Unfortunately, I was detained on another item of very important legislative business. You know how it is, Mr. Chairman; we have to share ourselves. When demands are made on certain people's limited time, we have to do the best we can to adjust to the circumstances. If I am repetitious at times, I hope members will bear with me as I make my comments about this situation.

I want to say to the minister that we have not had a chance to exchange pleasantries or even in-depth ideas about the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. I am sure the minister fully understands the political sensitivities of this type of ministry and that the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), who preceded him in this portfolio, will have pointed out to him the various pitfalls and land mines that can exist in a portfolio that would appear on the surface to be as bland as this one.

In any event, the former minister managed to take the ministry and the government to the brink of disaster in a ministry that everybody else thought was a political sinecure and one where it was impossible to get into any difficulties. I say to the present minister that I am sure he will not repeat these unfortunate incidents.

I can recall travelling with the minister on the constitutional committee. You will be interested to know this, Mr. Chairman. I can recall going to that great province of Alberta. You will recall at that time, as a private member, the minister made some comments which sort of touched or affected the sensitivities of our friends in Alberta. I recall that merited the minister a return engagement to the province --

Mr. Conway: What did he call them?

Mr. Roy: The member for Renfrew North asks, "What did he call them?" I will have to rely on his wealth of information --

Mr. Conway: Some things are not parliamentary.

Mr. Roy: I do not know. Maybe my friends can help me. I do not know what he called them, but in any event, given those circumstances this was good experience for the minister. Now when he is Minister of Citizenship and Culture he will be much more sensitive in responding to the difficulties which may happen in the field of the arts.

I want to join the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), whom I had the benefit of mentioning, in saying a couple of things that I found very unfortunate in this whole McMichael incident. The first one was the shabby treatment that was given to this individual.

I know that his statement talks about a memorandum of agreement. Those of us who sat on the committee witnessed this courtroom door agreement that was arrived at on the morning the committee was to start. All at once there was a memorandum of agreement. Given the pressure that the McMichaels were subjected to in this whole incident, it is no small wonder that they decided to come to some form of agreement and not get involved in the political mud throwing that was going to occur in this particular committee.

The whole incident was unfortunate in the sense that whether the McMichaels in some way contributed to the circumstances by some administrative deficiencies or otherwise, they did not deserve the treatment they received from the government and from the minister. I say this very sincerely, because it shocked us as members of the committee to see the two individuals who had made a gift of such largess, subsequently, a few years down the line, subjected to the type of innuendo and the type of information that was released by we do not know whom.

We asked who had released it, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you participated in the deliberations of the committee. We asked at that time who would release this information. In any event, the result of this whole unfortunate incident was that the reputation, the character and the graciousness of the whole gift was challenged. The integrity of these individuals was challenged in the sense that it was suggested they had personally benefited through some dealings as administrators of this gallery. The result was the reputation of these fine people was tarnished.

That is an injustice which is irreparable. I think members have had sufficient experience in a variety of fields to know that reputation is something that is difficult to gain and, unfortunately, when it is lost it is very difficult to regain.

Given those circumstances, I found it very unfortunate, and the member for Quinte mentioned the fact, that this seemed to affect the McMichaels physically and mentally. I do not know these people personally, but over the few months that the dispute took place I had occasion to witness the very unfortunate incident and the effect it had on the health of these individuals. I think it was very unfortunate indeed.

I trust this minister will understand, and those of us who are talking about the very unfortunate happenings that took place involving the minister and the McMichaels should undertake to ensure this is something that should not be repeated. Not only is it because it is uncharitable to the people involved, but certainly it is not a good precedent to have for future donors who want to give to the government, who want to participate in the arts and face the risk, somewhere down the line, that they will be tarnished, as these people were.

10 p.m.

These comments must go on the record. It seems to me that what was most cynical about the allegations against the McMichaels is that, given some of the agreements we suspect have taken place between donors and the Ontario Heritage Foundation, and some of the fine and very advantageous benefits received by the donors in some of these cases -- I do not intend to name names, but I recall during the discussion of the committee that we asked --

Mr. Nixon: What about Mr. Firestone?

Mr. Roy: My colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentions the Firestone collection. We recall during the deliberations of the committee we asked to see the memorandum of agreement between Firestone and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and to my knowledge it was never produced. We have to ask why. Is it just too sweet a deal? What is the risk or problem with producing this particular agreement?

I would like to compare that agreement with the agreement the McMichaels made. At the time the McMichael gift was made there was no tax benefit accruing provincially to these people. Yet they were --

Mr. Nixon: They were not taking any advantage.

Mr. Roy: That is right. Further down the line, they were the ones who were alleged to have had some special tax benefit, or to have taken advantage of some sale of paintings, when they got no tax benefit at the time the gift was made. There were no shenanigans in their gift. It was straightforward. It was sincere. It was honest. It was a tremendous gift to Ontario and to Canada.

That they should be treated this way is something that should not have happened and something that is irreparable. I trust the minister is seeing to it, from the conduct of his predecessor and the conduct of the government towards these people, that such things do not happen again.

The other matter we asked about and to my knowledge never received any response to at the time of the committee was what type of investigation had been made as to how the information had been released against McMichael by someone within the ministry. I was under the impression when this information first came out -- and it was raised by our former leader, Mr. Smith, the former member for Hamilton West -- that the information was being released by the then Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), yet he denied in committee that any such information was released.

I was under the impression that the people on the board of the McMichael foundation, such as the chairman, Mr. Allyn Taylor, were the ones releasing this information that was so destructive and so harmful to the McMichaels. They denied this and I believe them. I believe Mr. Taylor and I believe the minister when he said, "No, I did not deliberately release this information." When we inquired as to how the information had got out, one would think that both the foundation and the ministry would be concerned about such damaging information, most of which was unfounded.

I can recall that information apparently circulating within the Progressive Conservative caucus. Information was being exchanged about what the McMichaels were up to, involving totem poles out in British Columbia and that sort of thing. Apparently both these sources denied releasing the information and yet no real effort was made to find out where the information came from.

There was no police investigation, and as far as I know there was no internal investigation by the ministry. One must conclude that neither the ministry nor the board evidenced much enthusiasm for determining the source of the information, which leads to the assumption that they were not overly concerned about the information so damaging to the McMichaels. I find that unfortunate. In my opinion the acting minister and the government were derelict in their duty in not persisting in their pursuit of the source of that information.

As a final comment I want to say to the minister, given the circumstances and history of this legislation, he could have what I would consider to be a better bill than the one he has now, which involves a memorandum of agreement and a further memorandum of agreement. It seems to me the way to have solid and lasting legislation would be to have everything incorporated in legislation rather than in memorandums of agreement which creates loose ends and that is not the best situation to be in.

There should be a piece of legislation. Then, if necessary, he can issue regulations to the legislation. I think he could have done better than this sort of hotchpotch. I know he was trying to work out some form of agreement, but having worked as hard as he has and having reached an agreement, he could have incorporated it into legislation. It is not good draftsmanship to have legislation by memorandums of agreement. That is not a neat and correct way to do things.

Having made these few comments, I want to wish the minister well in his new portfolio. I hope our remarks will be accepted in the spirit in which they were made, that is, out of sincere concern for the individuals who were hurt.

It is never a fair fight when individuals as sincere and at times as naive as the McMichaels are taking on government, especially this government. Say what you will about the Conservative Party of Ontario, you fellows know how to get into a cat fight and when you want to play dirty you can play as dirty as anyone.

Mr. Brandt: We have got heart.

Mr. Roy: You did not show much heart in that situation. You were heartless.

Mr. Brandt: You can learn.

Mr. Roy: The member for Sarnia says we can learn. That is the type of lesson I would not want to learn. I think I can play in the political process without learning shabby and underhanded tactics. If the member takes pride in what took place with the McMichaels he goes down in my opinion, because I would not have thought he could be proud of an incident like that.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food made a remark that I missed. All I can say to him is that he should be back in the Ministry of Health. They need him there and the doctors of the province need him.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You didn't know a good thing when you had it.

Mr. Roy: We respected and believed him when he was in Health.

Mr. Epp: Don't pour it on too much. First thing you know, he will be running for the leadership.

Mr. Roy: For the leadership --

Mr. Chairman: Let us get back to the bill for a little bit.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, you know the respect I have for the chair, especially when you are in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Especially because I am a lawyer also.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Roy: Given your admonition, I am going to sit down --

Mr. Chairman: Not on my account, please.

Mr. Roy: I just say to the minister I would still like to see the agreement between Firestone and the Ontario Heritage Foundation -- did we have that? Maybe the minister can correct me, but I thought we never saw it. I would still like to see it.

I trust that future donors, people who will make such gifts to the province, will receive --

Mr. Conway: Like the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Someone dares to mention my name in the same category as the McMichaels and the Firestones.

Mr. Nixon: If you had the Roy collection, you would have something.

Mr. Roy: Yes. It is very modest. My friends are being very cynical.

Mr. Nixon: It surpasses Morty Shulman's.

Mr. Roy: I feel like St. Peter when he was invited to the table for the Last Supper by Christ. He had to decline. I am bashful that my modest collection is compared to the Firestone and the McMichael collections.

Mr. Nixon: That is a mixed metaphor if I ever heard one.

Mr. Roy: The only way they would accept my gift would be if there was a Liberal government at Queen's Park. I take great interest in the arts and maybe some day I can make some modest contribution. If that should happen, having shown such largess I trust I would not be treated in the way the unfortunate McMichaels were treated. I think the minister should have a policy to encourage donors and not discourage them with this type of conduct.

Mr. Chairman: I set an unfortunate precedent by allowing the minister an opening statement, because everyone has been talking and we have not gone through one section yet.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McCaffrey moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2) section 9 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"The net profits of the corporation from the sale of books, art reproductions, copyrights, artefacts and other wares may be paid into and become part of the special fund or the general fund, and where such net profits are paid into the general fund, any part of the net profits may be transferred from the general fund to the special fund as the board may determine."

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 175, as amended, reported.

On motion by Mr. Cureatz, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment and one bill without amendment.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, you know my sensitivity to the standing rules, rules of order and all these kinds of things. With regard to the bill we have just talked about while in committee of the whole, has it had third reading or was I supposed to move third reading? How does that happen?

Assistant Clerk: It goes on the Order Paper.

Mr. Nixon: It awaits. It's going to go on the Order Paper.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Fine. Perhaps somebody would be good enough to send me a copy of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture bill.

Mr. Roy: You don't know it by heart?

Mr. Nixon: You have six staff members there, all getting overtime.

Mr. Roy: Isn't it annoying? They supply you with a limousine and everything else, but no copy of the bill.

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE ACT

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey moved second reading of Bill 36, An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some members have some comments they would like to make on the opportunity we are provided with in the establishment of the new ministry. For two reasons, primarily because I have no formal statement, I am not prepared to go into anything in any length -- I do not want to pre-empt anybody -- but I assume that someone, maybe my opposition critic the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), is prepared to do so.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that this ministry is one that, needless to say, I am extraordinarily excited about. The ministry has a new name, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, and while I think it would not need to be said to anybody in this assembly, it is important that we remember that there is nothing really new about the ministry.

I refer in particular to the "citizenship" part of the title. As members well know, the citizenship and multiculturalism division has been a very central part of the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation since its inception. Indeed, the citizenship and multiculturalism division has its roots well back before the establishment of the former Ministry of Culture and Recreation, I think residing within the Ministry of Education. I just want to emphasize that, because while I think we know here that this is not "a new ministry," we have just taken advantage of the ministry change to give quite proper focus to the good work that has been done by this division over its very many years.

The bill has a statement of functions, as I guess all bills or acts have when they establish a new ministry. I will not read those, but they refer to the objectives, or the mandate if I can call it that, of the ministry. I would suspect that my critics would use the four goals or mandates of the ministry to make some comments or some observations. I look forward to hearing their views on the bill and, if time permits, I would have some response to it.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is really not too much we can do to criticize this extensively yet.

Mr. Nixon: We like the minister.

Mr. O'Neil: Well, we like the minister at present, but we will just have to see what sort of a job he does. I think that in the past there has been some neglect of both the citizenship end of this part of the ministry and the cultural end. I know that I and many of our colleagues are not really that impressed with the attention that was given to both the cultural and the citizenship ends. We look forward to seeing what new initiatives both the minister and his staff take in this new ministry. We wish him luck. We will be keeping an eye on things.

One thing on which I would like to ask the minister to make a comment is whether there will be an annual report to the Legislature on this. I do not notice any portion in the bill concerning that.

As I say, we look forward to seeing what steps the minister takes, and we shall certainly be seeing that our party makes a great contribution to the debate to see that he and his ministry staff are doing the job they should in both the citizenship and cultural fields.

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter the debate on Bill 36, because we do not think we are going to support this bill. That has nothing to do with the minister, because we were most pleased that he was appointed minister. I think, if he had not had his ministry amputated and dismembered, he would have done a very good job, certainly a better job than his predecessor did. But we cannot accept the government playing football and creating these ministries only for expediency, only for the purpose of internal reorganizations of the portfolios and to keep some ministers busy with their jobs in the cabinet. We think that culture and recreation are two very important areas, and there is a need on the part of the government to have a very strong ministry.

I want to remind the members that in 1974, when the Ministry of Culture and Recreation was created, the Premier (Mr. Davis) explained why the two areas of culture and recreation were closely related and why there was a need to have one ministry. I should like to quote from the statement the Premier read in the House. We know that when the Premier reads statements prepared for him, he speaks more seriously than when he speaks the way he did today, with levity, giving the impression he is addressing the Boy Scouts of Brampton.

On December 17, 1974, the Premier said: "This new ministry is in response to the significant role which culture and recreation play in enhancing the quality of life and good citizenship. Although the government of this province has long provided a variety of cultural and recreational programs, the time has now come to bring them together within a single ministry for added emphasis.

"Underlying the priority the government attaches to this field is our firm conviction that individual and community involvement in the process of cultural and recreational development contributes to full and equal citizenship. The objectives of the new ministry, then, will focus on ways in which culture and recreation can enhance the general quality of life in our province, development contributes to full and equal citizenship. The objectives of the new ministry, then, will focus on ways in which culture and recreation can enhance the general quality of life in our province.

"Within this basic philosophy, the ministry's programs will be directed to three distinct areas. First, the ministry will be responsible for assisting in preserving and enhancing our cultural heritage, including archaeological and historical sites, our art galleries and so on. Emphasis will be given to our diversity of cultural traditions and backgrounds, and programs geared towards maintaining the vitality of our multicultural society will be a significant part of the new ministry.

"Secondly, the ministry will have special responsibility to promote access to the benefits of citizenship for both new and Ontario-born residents alike, including the opportunity to take part in sports and recreation programs and to enjoy access to the cultural products of past and present generations. Because culture and recreation have no meaning if they cannot be shared and enjoyed by individuals, special attention will be focused on increasing public involvement, participation and enjoyment of these activities."

This was the premise on which the government of Ontario in 1974 based its decision to set up a new Ministry of Culture and Recreation. Of course, that ministry was the result of a long process that took place in Ontario over more than three decades, as a matter of fact since before the war, when the governments of Ontario and of Canada tried to define the role of the government in the recreation area because for many years recreation had been the private domain of the individual. The government had no role in recreation, but ever since the 1940s there was a movement that required more involvement on the part of the government.

During the war years, many Canadians went to war and all at once the governments of Canada and of Ontario realized that fitness was an important part of the training of the soldiers. When they came back, the government of Ontario thought that fitness was one of the permanent features of our society, especially in relation to young people. After many attempts, the government created a youth secretariat to deal specifically with the issues of recreation and fitness.

As the members will remember, at the federal level also the government set up a fitness and amateur sport department which had a short life but was in a way a recognition on the part of the federal government that there was a need for co-ordination in that area.

The reason we oppose this bill is that we think both areas are intrinsically connected, that one cannot separate the recreational and cultural aspects of the ministry and that unless there is accord on the part of the government in the delivery of services we will be confronted with all kinds of confusion and ambiguity.

To give one example, right now the organizations in the province involved in the recreational area are questioning which ministry they will apply to under regulation 200; and there are some organizations which are asking that libraries, for instance, should be under the Ministry of Recreation and Tourism, while we know that under Bill 36, which we are debating, the Public Libraries Act will be administered by this ministry.

Not only for practical purposes, but also in terms of general strategy in the area of culture and the delivery of those recreational activities which have a high cultural content, we think the ministry should not have been dismembered and that, especially at this time, we should have had a Ministry of Culture and Recreation the way we had before.

10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I direct the honourable member's attention to the clock.

On motion by Mr. Di Santo, the debate was adjourned.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) concerning urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I am prepared to listen to the honourable member for a period of five minutes, and the minister may have five minutes, if he so desires, to reply.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, for the past 10 months, the owners of homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation outside of this House -- and a lot of them are in it tonight -- and I in this House have repeatedly asked the minister to reduce the assessments on UFFI houses in line with the reduction in their value owing to UFFI. Over and over again the minister has said "no," and his answers get more bizarre, culminating with the one last Friday, which is the reason for this debate this evening.

He knows very well that the Assessment Act requires his ministry to apply an assessment annually on all property at its market or real value and in fair relationship to other property. As minister, that is his responsibility. There can be no question about that. When he ignores it, he is breaking his own law. Yet that is exactly what he is doing with respect to UFFI homes. Just look at the absurdity of his position.

In reply to one of my numerous requests for a reduction in assessment, he said again by letter of January 20, 1982, what he had been saying since last June. I quote, "I do acknowledge that the presence of UFFI can have an effect on property value." Then he went on to refuse to make any adjustments because, as he says, he does not have enough sales information on which to make a judgement as to the amount of reduction. Ironically, in the same letter, he outlines the information the owner should provide to the court of revision so it can arrive at a just reduction.

What he is really saying is that he knows what information is needed, but he is telling the home owners to get it, when it was his obligation to seek it out and apply it in assessing the properties before the roll was closed. They should never have had to appeal to the court of revision.

Apart from him expecting lay home owners to provide the information he should seek out, the absurdity of his arguments against reducing assessments are demonstrated in other ways. Last Thursday, he rejected my request for a 20 per cent reduction on all UFFI home assessments, such as New Brunswick has instituted, because he said it was not fair to all UFFI home owners. He said some homes should have larger reductions than others, and he would not impose that degree of unfairness. I ask him what his idea of fairness is: to take no initiative to give a reduction to anyone? "Let them appeal" is his answer.

What does this mean, in fairness? We checked the numbers of UFFI home owners who have appealed. We checked the municipalities of Brant county, Kitchener-Waterloo region, London, Niagara region, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and the Metro municipalities of Etobicoke, York, North York, Scarborough and East York, as well as Windsor, about 30 or 40 per cent of the population of this province.

In these municipalities, total requests for tests on UFFI homes number 4,035, indicating known UFFI homes. Yet only 1,599 or 39 per cent appealed their assessments. In fact, the low percentage of those appealing is much worse than that, because, of home owners requesting tests, the known houses represent not more than 50 per cent of the total UFFI homes. Thus, only one out of four or five UFFI home owners has appealed.

Even if the assessment courts allow the appeals that are before them, 75 or 80 per cent of all UFFI home owners will pay taxes this year as if their properties were at full value without UFFI. That is the minister's idea of fairness.

Of course, he could do as he did for the Toronto home owners, who had improvements on their properties, even though they had not appealed their assessments. He is willing to pass legislation deeming they have all accepted and can have their day in court. That is exactly what I asked him to do last Friday for the UFFI home owners, and he refused.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has one minute.

Mr. Swart: All that still is not his total abuse of the UFFI home owners. Unlike other appeals, his assessors are not going to do the investigations and make specific recommendations to the court of revision. Rather, he will leave it to the home owners to do on their own. The minister stated last Friday that he had not had one person within that category contact him on the basis that he had a problem vis-à-vis his appeal. That is obvious, because no appeals have yet been heard.

All in all, it would be difficult to envisage a more disgraceful discharge of the minister's responsibility. What makes his conduct even more inexcusable is that he is perpetrating this massive injustice against a group of totally innocent people who are in this horrible economic and health plight solely as a result of the negligence of his government and the federal government, which are now turning their backs on their cries for help. For God's sake, even at this late date, the minister should reconsider and offer them the minimum measure of justice that a reduction in assessment would provide.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind the people in the visitors' galleries that no noise is to be entertained.

Mr. Cassidy: That was just vigorous applause for this caucus.

Mr. Speaker: It was indeed, but I shall have to advise the visitors that if it happens again they will have to vacate.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as is quite normal, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) tries to make a simplistic issue out of a very complicated issue. Of course that is not the case at all. It would have been very simple to do something that New Brunswick has done, come up with an across-the-board change in the value of the assessment on a property. We do not think that is at all fair and equitable to the people involved with this problem. There is no doubt that this problem is not caused by the people themselves. I do not think anyone debates that.

I do challenge the particular reference by the honourable member as to what level of government is responsible for the problem, but that is an issue for another day and I do not want to take time on it tonight. I would suggest that to arbitrarily come out with a figure would not be fair to the people involved. There is no doubt at all, based on the information to date --

Mr. Di Santo: You would do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I did not interrupt anyone over there. Be quiet for a moment and listen to the facts for a change. The member is not used to it, but he should just be quiet for a minute and listen.

There is general consensus as to the extent of the problem. In the case of some properties there is very little if any problem at all. The other extreme is a very significant and a very expensive solution: to rid that property of the foam and the problems related thereto. To cop out of the problem arbitrarily, as New Brunswick has done, and come up with a figure may have some simplistic appeal to some members, but it does not to me.

To suggest that the onus should be on the assessment branch of this government is like saying there are a bunch of needles in the haystack out there and by some bit of psychoanalysis or whatever they can identify those needles. That is really the extent of the problem the honourable member is trying to suggest.

We are not aware of many of the properties that have the problem. As a matter of fact, I would even go so far as to suggest there are many property owners who do not realize they have urea formaldehyde foam insulation as they may not have had a health-related problem. To suggest that those people should be in the same category as those who do have a significant problem and come up with an arbitrary figure would be completely unfair.

Obviously the honourable member is not even aware of the court that handles these things. He keeps referring to it as the court of revision. For his information, it is the assessment review court. So that he will know for the future, that is the impartial tribunal that will deal with the facts of the case. What we have done in every municipality in this province where ratepayers have brought forth the fact that they have a problem, is we have worked with them and provided information and details as to what they should be prepared to present to that court, such as the fact that they have the insulation; some of the insulation; a copy of their grant or a copy of their contract.

Mr. McClellan: You can find renovations to reassess, but you can't find homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Doesn't the member ever stay quiet?

Mr. McClellan: When it is absolute rubbish, it is very hard.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why does he not turn around and talk to the wall and listen to himself for a change? It is not much to listen to but he should try it.

In actual fact the issue involved here is not nearly as simplistic as stated. The people, we hope, will go before the court. Whenever we have been asked, we have assisted them in what they would need to present the problem, any indication of market values within the neighbourhood, any cost from people who would take out the insulation, and relate those facts in front of the assessment review court. We would hope that, understandably, their assessments would be reduced and adjusted accordingly.

Depending on what happens in the courts this year, if there is any kind of indicated pattern, obviously we will be looking at that issue as far as 1982 assessment for 1983 taxation is concerned. However, at the moment we really do not have that information and it would be completely unfair and completely inequitable otherwise.

The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.