Journal des débats 1984-avril-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: A week or 10 days ago I raised with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) serious concerns which I had about reports from within the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and outside the department, in the educational field to be precise, about the fact that Ontario student assistance program forms would be delayed this year by at least two months; they would be unavailable in March, although they are usually available then, and would not be available until some time in early May.

The minister rose in her place on April 9 to answer my question by saying that the colleges and universities would receive those application forms in the very near future and that there would not be a two-month delay. I was pleased to know that.

I am very concerned that the minister did not deal with the fact there is going to be a delay and that tens of thousands of Ontarians in high school will not receive their OSAP application forms until May or perhaps later.

We are told by ministry officials today the reason for the delay, the reason tens of thousands of young Ontarians are not going to get their application forms at the high school level until mid-May, is they were stood down at the Queen's Printer because the bicentennial poster had priority. That is a very serious matter and the minister ought to have dealt with it.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member, as I am sure he is already aware, that is hardly a point of privilege. However, I am sure the minister will take note of your remarks.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

VISIT BY PRESIDENT OF PORTUGAL

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform members of the Legislature of the state visit to Canada and Ontario of the President of the Republic of Portugal and Mrs. Eanes. President Eanes is visiting Canada following an invitation by Prime Minister Trudeau in 1977.

President Eanes is the first Portuguese head of state to visit Canada. The current visit includes stops in Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal. A scheduled visit to St. John's, Newfoundland, had to be cancelled because of weather conditions. Instead, the Portuguese party visited Halifax.

Today a luncheon in honour of President and Mrs. Eanes is being given by the Premier (Mr. Davis). A number of ministers and members of the Legislature are attending -- that is kind of obvious -- including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

The President, who was elected by universal suffrage independent of political parties, will complete his second mandate in 1985. He is very popular in Portugal and his visit to Toronto today comes at a time of national celebration for his countrymen. The Portuguese are marking 10 years of democracy this month. President Eanes has been a chief exponent of "open, clear democracy" since the 1974 revolution in Portugal. As army chief of staff, he helped maintain the democratic regime established by the revolution.

Canada and Portugal have long-standing historic ties. Records of navigation of the North Atlantic reveal contact as far back as the 15th century.

Canada and Portugal work together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations.

There are more than 300,000 immigrants and Canadian citizens of Portuguese origin living in Canada, 200,000 of whom reside in Ontario, 100,000 in Metro Toronto and, I might add, 1,500 in Strathroy.

I am sure the members of the Legislature join me in extending warmest greetings to President and Mrs. Eanes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have an important first question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who I understand is not going to be here right away but is expected somewhat later. If the chief government whip could indicate my interest in raising a question with the minister, I would very much appreciate it.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Irish friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), the Minister of Community and Social Services. It concerns his ministry's policy of closing six centres for the developmentally handicapped in Ontario. As the minister will know, one of the centres slated for closure is D'Arcy Place in the great city of Cobourg, where last Friday his Conservative colleague the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) convened a press conference to discuss ways and means of perhaps perpetuating that important part of the Northumberland community.

At that press conference the honourable member said, respecting the future of D'Arcy Place, "One other time when a delegation came up re D'Arcy Place, I asked the minister whether I could ask a question in the House and he said, 'If you do, then I will close it for sure,' so I have been pretty cautious ever since."

Can the Minister of Community and Social Services indicate whether it is the policy of his ministry that the criterion on the basis of which he proceeds to close or keep open such centres as D'Arcy Place is whether members of this House raise questions in this assembly?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, I never said any such thing. Second, I would expect the acting leader of the Liberal Party to know better than to ask.

Mr. Conway: The minister's problem is not with this side of the House. His problem is with his colleague the member for Northumberland who said he said that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister confirm statistics that have been brought to our attention about 45 per cent of the men and women who have already been displaced by the closure of the centres in Cobourg, Aurora, Goderich, Brockville, St. Thomas and Whitby? Can he confirm that of the people already displaced as a result of his ministry's policy in this respect, 45 per cent have already been re-established in larger institutions? If so, does that not represent a full and flagrant contradiction of the government's policy of greater reliance on community-based services and on smaller institutions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is categorically untrue and I would challenge the acting leader of the Liberal Party to produce the figures according to which he made a statement such as that.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether, in his opinion, there is any chance D'Arcy Place will be kept open, given that it is quite unique among the institutions that are designated for closure, having group homes onsite as a transitional process? Is there any chance that one will be maintained?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to give any false hope, in particular to employees who have to make choices. That is really why we announced the total five-year program at the time we did.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister announced it to save money.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What was that?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If one is going to mumble, one should at least mumble intelligently.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If there are new circumstances brought to my attention, I am prepared to look at D'Arcy Place.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, does the minister recall attending a meeting at the Bluewater Centre and singing the praises of the facilities there? Does he recall indicating to the staff that such excellent facilities and such excellent programs for the developmentally handicapped would not close, that there was no fear of such facilities closing, then less than a year later he announced their closure?

Is it not true the minister closed these centres to make room for the young offenders with the introduction of the Young Offenders Act in Ottawa, something the minister should have been prepared for three years ago? Now that he has been caught off guard he has decided to close these centres, to move out the developmentally handicapped in order to make room for the young offenders. Is that not true? Is that not the reason these centres are being closed?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that question was once addressed to the Premier (Mr. Davis), I believe by the same honourable member, and since he likes to get punched in the mouth twice, here it comes. That is the silliest, most stupid and most idiotic statement I have yet heard in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I had a second question which I view as an important question for the Minister of Labour. I will stand it down until his arrival in the House.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson). In their absence and that of the Premier, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) and the government House leader (Mr. Wells), we would like to stand down our two leadoff questions until such time as somebody arrives. We will proceed with rotation until that time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my responsibility to provide for attendance.

Mr. McClellan: We are just asking for the opportunity to stand down the leadoff questions for a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept a new question from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton).

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) to say he was standing down the first two leadoff questions for the third party and would assume if that is the case, and I may have misunderstood, the questions should then begin here with the first private members' questions.

Mr. Speaker: Absolutely.

ARDA PROGRAM

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture and Food tell the more than 400 farmers of this province who are leasing land under the agricultural and rural development agreement what his plans are for that land? Is he going to give them an opportunity to renew the lease?

Is the minister suggesting the rate at which the lease is charged is going to go up to something in the order of one percentage point below the Farm Credit Corp. rate of 14 5/8 per cent? If so, does he not agree that kind of rate is simply not affordable to the people in eastern and northern Ontario?

Does the minister not think it is fair that he should announce now what his intentions are for that ARDA land? These farmers have to plan now what they are going to do with that land, whether they are going to plant it, fertilize it and so on. Is he going to tell them right away what his intentions are for that ARDA land?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall that when the ARDA program began and people entered into leases for the initial five years it was at a certain given rate. They entered into those leases on the understanding that if they went into a second five-year lease there would be a different rate.

I am not going to try now to recall all the details of the formula, but I know the member is familiar with them. There are a number of instances where people at the end of the second five years have elected not to buy the properties. The original intention of the program was that after the two five-year leases, people would pick up the land or give it up so that others might have it.

We are reviewing the program at this time as to what our policy should be, and as soon as we have concluded that review, made some decisions and discussed it with Management Board and cabinet, I will be happy to report back to the House.

Mr. Riddell: What are we to tell the farmers? I just spent a lot of last week in northern Ontario. The farmers do not know what to do. They do not know whether to go ahead and plant the land they have been leasing or whether to put fertilizer on it, because the minister will not tell them whether he will give them an opportunity to re-lease.

What do I tell a man like Mr. Stymiest, a farmer whose name came to the minister's attention not too long ago? He has 100 acres of ARDA land. He is waiting for the minister to make up his mind as to whether he can renew the lease on that land. He is holding up his operation; he does not know whether to plant or fertilize it.

There are about 400 farmers in the same boat who do not know whether the government is going to do away with the ARDA program, give them an option to lease, to renew the lease or to buy the ARDA land. Why cannot the minister tell them right now what his plans are so they can go ahead and plan their year's activities?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are well aware of the factors the member mentions. I have been up north several times recently; I did not notice anybody planting up there yet, nor are they likely to for a little while. I can assure the member we are well aware of the pressures of time, and we will make a decision in a timely fashion and convey the decision to the farmers involved.

I remind the member that there are and have been various points where the farmers could have exercised the option to buy the property. I hope the member was not trying to imply in his question that they have been denied the right to buy the property, because that is not the case.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the minister's comment that they have not started to plant up there yet and therefore there is no hurry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: If the minister knows anything about farming, surely he realizes they have to plan weeks and months in advance to get their financing and everything else.

With regard to any new leases or renewal of leases, will the minister assure this House that any increase in the cost of those leases will not exceed the average farm income, or at least average farm prices, from the time the ARDA lands were originally leased?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the policy as it was introduced a number of years ago and agreed to by the lessees was that in the initial five-year period rent would be, I believe, seven per cent of its value, and in the second five-year period it would go up to the order of 11 or 14 per cent, including any improvements. In most cases, through the ARDA program we have invested considerable amounts of money in drainage and other kinds of improvements to the properties in question.

Last year, in discussing the renewal rates with Management Board, the board agreed to the establishment of a rate at a level less than the formula would have required; a formula that had been agreed to at the outset by the individual farmers.

I will certainly take into account the member's concerns. Again I reiterate that we are well aware of the pressures on the individual farmer. We do not want to drag this out unnecessarily, and we will make a timely decision and announce it to them as soon as possible.

2:20 p.m.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that almost 1,000 residents of Thunder Bay district must travel either to Winnipeg or to Toronto every year on their doctors' orders for necessary medical treatment not available in the Thunder Bay area? Does the minister realize this is a 52 per cent increase since 1977 in spite of the air ambulance service and in spite of improvements in some specialist services?

Does he realize these people must pay their own transportation costs? Does he not think it is about time this medically necessary travel ordered by their physicians was covered by the Ontario health insurance plan?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that not only in northern Ontario but also in many parts of this province people do have to travel varying distances for specialized medical care. Obviously those who live in the Thunder Bay area would have greater distances to travel than some others, and I am cognizant of that.

The honourable member is also aware, I trust, that if the individual is transferred from a hospital in that community --

Mr. Foulds: This does not include hospital transfers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- his transfer by the air ambulance service is covered at the expense of the health care system.

The member should also be aware that determining what is a distance beyond which any public assistance ought to be available is sometimes rather difficult. If he is suggesting there ought to be a comprehensive travel subsidy system across the whole province for persons who have to travel over a certain distance for medical care, then he might wish to suggest what the cutoff point might be.

There are also situations where persons living in closer proximity to a medical centre may have to travel back and forth very frequently, perhaps every day. It is not just a simple matter of looking at distance.

However, if one looks as objectively as possible at the financial stresses that exist within the health care system these days, there might be greater priorities to address with the resources that are available before we get into a transportation subsidy program.

Mr. Foulds: Nobody said it was simple. But does the minister think it is fair that people who pay the same OHIP premiums as people in Metro Toronto, who pay the same taxes and who pay a higher sales tax because the base price is higher, should also have to pay, when someone is sick in their family, an average of almost $1,400 annually for transportation to a specialist medical facility? Does the minister know that some families have had to pay as much as $18,000 over a three-year period for a child who had to have specialist treatment for cancer?

Does the minister not think it is now time that those people who pay medical premiums in northern Ontario had the same access to services as people who pay medical premiums in Metro Toronto? To paraphrase my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), does the minister think everybody in Thunder Bay who gets sick, or who has somebody in his family who is sick, is rich?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, I would not conclude that that was the case; I would not think the member would expect me to conclude that that was the case.

The question of the severity of individual cases can be appealed and in fact has been brought before the board on a number of occasions with success. If the member knows of situations such as he describes where there is financial hardship because of the circumstances --

Mr. Foulds: It is not financial hardship that should be the criterion; it is equality.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Where there is financial hardship, then the member might suggest to the individual that he should bring the matter before the board. I would suggest on the basis of the board's past performance that he might get a very favourable hearing.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister has pointed out what he perceives to be difficulties in implementing a transportation subsidy program. He will know that he has had at least two years to study this situation since we tabled a report that called for the subsidy program to be implemented.

The minister talks about the geographic difficulties of implementing such a program. I wonder whether it is any more difficult than implementing the licence plate program, in which the government decided that, beyond a certain boundary in the northeastern and northwestern areas of this province, the transportation costs were so high as to militate against having a very high licence plate fee.

I wonder whether the minister would consider using the same geographic criterion as has already been established for licence plates across this province. Or does he think the health of our citizens is less important than the issue of licence plate subsidies?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is totally inappropriate to consider the licence plate solution for something as important as this.

FISH HATCHERY

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, my question could be put to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) or the Minister of the Environment. I think I will go with my third choice.

The minister is aware of the plans for Limnos Ltd. to establish a trout hatchery in the hot waste water at the Pickering nuclear generating station. I wonder whether the minister has looked into the situation as it relates to rearing trout in the waste water from the nuclear station and whether he has satisfied himself that the fish will not contain any contaminants and could be very properly put on the market without glowing.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question and the sincerity with which it was asked, and I will redirect.

Mr. Speaker: To whom?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: To whomever you prefer.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister may answer the question and the supplementary, then, at the same time.

Knowing full well that Ontario Hydro discharges some 17 million curies of tritium a year into that water, my supplementary question is whether that water is being used as a heat source with a heat exchanger or whether the fish are being raised in the discharge of the cooling water from the nuclear plant. I wonder whether it would not be to his advantage to look into this matter.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I would be more than pleased on behalf of the member for Niagara Falls to look into the question that has been raised. We will get back to the House with the full details of that program.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. I assume he will be aware of the pretty serious string of allegations made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. during the last two or three weeks against the past operation of the Niagara Regional Police.

Would the minister not agree with me that the many instances of inappropriate and nonaccountable use of public funds are serious -- such things as credit cards being used without any reporting, a $17,000 slush fund and expense allowances for commissioners, which included a flat sum and then all their expenses in addition to that with no accountability?

Does he not think the absence of any detailed audit for the 14 years of the police force's operation is totally inexcusable? Would he as the minister responsible for policing now order an audit for those years?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a CBC reporter has made numerous allegations over that network concerning the Niagara region. Indeed, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is reviewing those allegations at this time, so I will be able to make a comment on them further when the ministry people have reviewed the allegations.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: I might further inform the minister, if he is not aware, that the regional council, which has to raise close to $25 million for the operation of that police force, never received a copy of the full budget of the police commission, at least according to the minister in a letter I received from him. When I asked earlier this year for a copy of the full budget, he wrote back to me saying he had taken it before the police commission and it was denied.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: He said, "The summary which was sent to you previously was in fact the budget that was presented to regional council and approved by them."

Would the minister not think that this in itself should cause him to look into the funding and the operation of that police force for the last 14 years?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I do not believe that one occasion would cause me to go as far back as 14 years, but as I told the honourable member, we have just received the allegations. There has been a series done by a reporter for the CBC.

When the matter is reviewed, I can better answer those questions because there had been some comments made over a period of time regarding the Niagara region. Some of those allegations, and there appear to be repeated ones, are being investigated with other matters and the two do not overlap or coincide. I know there are a number of allegations being made. We are reviewing them, and we will have some answer or explanation as to the factual --

Mr. Swart: The minister has been reviewing it for nine months now.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member makes a comment about nine months.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection, please.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It is a very long investigation. These are serious allegations, and we do not take the allegations lightly. Indeed, they will be reviewed, but not at his speed and not at the speed that perhaps the media would like them done. They will be done for the protection of all the individuals involved. It is a matter of law and not just a matter of feeding and satisfying people who make allegations and my replying to those allegations.

I take the job of police and responsibility for police very seriously, and I will not reply to allegations just as they are made in this House. This is not a police state. I answer and am responsible for the police in this jurisdiction. We do not have a police state where everything is at the fingertips of the police. The allegations will be reviewed in time.

LAKE ROSSEAU VILLAGE INN

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) raised a question regarding a small business development corporation which acquired a mortgage on a property known as Lake Rosseau Village Inn. The SBDC in question is 559700 Ontario Ltd., which was registered as a small business development corporation on September 12, 1983.

Prior to the registration of that corporation under the Small Business Development Corporations Act, staff of the ministry reviewed the affairs of the corporation with Mr. J. Spence Stewart, who, as indicated in public documents filed with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was the sole officer and director of the corporation at that time. At the time of registration, 559700 Ontario Ltd. indicated an interest in two small businesses, neither of which was related to the Lake Rosseau project.

As indicated in the Macleans article, the Toronto Board of Education Staff Credit Union Ltd. did not become a shareholder of that company until October 27, 1983. Lorraine Scullion, Patricia McGonegal and two other individuals became directors of the SBDC. Such an action to place representatives of the credit union on the board of the SBDC would not be unexpected given that the credit union was a significant shareholder.

As the honourable member is aware, a SBDC must deposit an amount equivalent to any incentives paid by the ministry in a trust account and such moneys are held in trust for the Ministry of Revenue. This money is released from the trust account only when the SBDC makes an equity investment in a qualified small business. To obtain such a release, information and documentation related to the investment must be submitted in the form of an affidavit from both the SBDC and the small business in which it is to invest.

The problem regarding the arm's-length investment raised by the member would have been revealed on the submission of those affidavits. If no application for the release of trust funds had been made, the ministry would have required submission of evidence that eligible investments equal to at least 40 per cent of the capital of the small business development corporation have been made by September 12, 1984, the first anniversary of the registration of the SBDC, and any problems would have been identified at that time. No application to have these funds released from the trust account has been submitted and, accordingly, no withdrawal from the trust account has been authorized. The ministry has confirmed that funds remain on deposit in the trust account.

The member mentioned that my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) received a letter in June 1983 regarding the development of the Lake Rosseau resort hotel. Even if that letter were known to the Ministry of Revenue, the registration of 559700 Ontario Ltd. would have been unaffected, since, as I indicated earlier in my answer, an investment in the Lake Rosseau resort hotel was not contemplated at the time of registration.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given us quite a full answer in response to my leader's question yesterday. But does he mean to inform the House that, no matter what the view of the Minister of Industry and Trade would be -- and he is the member for the Muskoka area -- the SBDC would have been permitted to go forward and make an investment in that development with funds approved and partly subsidized by the Ministry of Revenue?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but that is not what I intended to convey. My statement was that there was nothing in the information that was in the letter or in the response of the Ministry of Industry and Trade to this letter that would have affected the original registration.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think you should remind the minister that when he has a statement such as he has just made, there are provisions under standing order 27 so he can make it during ministers' statements and not during question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BREAST FEEDING OF INFANTS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have question for the Minister of Health about an unfortunate incident that happened in Chatham on March 27 at the Downtown Centre Shopping Mall. A patron of the mall was evicted from the food court on the concourse for nursing her four-month-old infant. Having become a grandfather just a few months ago, I take an interest in this.

The mother was confronted by a security guard, and the demand was made that the mother and child leave to take the child to a washroom to perform the function of nursing. The woman refused, so a policeman was called and she was escorted from the mall.

I spoke to the mall manager, and he told me it is not their policy to evict people for caring for their children in this manner. They did object to the specifics of the case, so I am not quarrelling with that.

I wonder whether the minister would respond to the principle of this as the minister who is responsible for the health of mothers and children. I believe restaurants and accommodations in restaurants also fall within his ministry. Will he make a statement on behalf of the government, saying he does not support the relegation of nursing mothers to a washroom to carry on this perfectly normal function?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which principle the honourable member is asking me to address myself to, but if it is the matter of breast feeding of infants, obviously that is generally accepted to be a --

Mr. Boudria: Generally?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, it is generally accepted -- among those involved in paediatrics, for example, in the appropriate rearing of children -- to be desirable; and to the extent that I have vicarious knowledge of the rearing of children, I would suggest that I am a subscriber to that point of view.

However, with respect to the appropriate place at which that might be done, I think the question is not so much a matter of government policy as it relates to questions of the appropriate sensitivities of various communities. I do not subscribe at all, though, to the view that a washroom facility is an appropriate place.

Mr. McGuigan: I am not asking for a question of legality because I realize a restaurant has jurisdiction over its facilities. What I am asking for is a clear statement from the ministry, representing all of this Legislature, that when such acts are carried out in a discreet manner so as not to be objectionable to anyone else in a restaurant, all of us here would support the mother in carrying out a natural function. I hope the minister will endorse that statement.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can certainly endorse that statement from a personal perspective, but I am not sure I have the authority to speak for everyone in the House.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that as Minister of Health he may not be the appropriate person to approach on this matter? Surely he would not say it is a matter of moral standards in a community that is at issue here, but rather the basic human right of a mother to be able to feed her child in a restaurant or in a mall. Why should security guards be able to go in and muscle away? Surely that is a human rights question, is it not?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I implied there was any moral issue involved with respect to the breast feeding of children. If the member feels it is an appropriate question for someone with direct responsibility for human rights, I suggest that is where he ought to direct the question.

Mr. Speaker: We are going to revert to the leader's questions, and it will be the first question for the New Democratic Party.

COLLEGE GRADUATES

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Education who, I am glad to see, has finally appeared in the House armed with a great load of statistics.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, work.

Mr. Allen: Yes, I understand. Last week when we queried the minister with respect to dramatic drops in technical enrolments in the grade 9 new enrolments under Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines, the minister said that if the statistics were true it would be a matter for genuine concern. I wonder if she has equal concern for some further statistics I wish to place before her. They have been compiled by her ministry with respect to the placement record of the college system over the last two or three years.

If the minister has looked over the graduate placement record, she may know that for November 1983 the records show that, of all years and all courses, students reporting indicate that 77 per cent were working as against 91 per cent two years before, and 10 per cent were in unrelated jobs as against seven per cent two years earlier.

Unemployment among the graduates of colleges of applied arts and technology, in other words, is now at 23 per cent as against nine per cent in 1980. The latest figure takes on even more significance if it is set against the corresponding month's figures for youth unemployment in the 15- to 24-year-old age group, which is 14.7 per cent as against 23 per cent for the CAAT graduates.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Surely that is an entirely unacceptable situation. Is the minister familiar with those statistics? What is her response and what does she propose to do in response to them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with those statistics. I am also familiar with the statistics that relate specifically to the ability of many of the employers to hire the graduates of the programs of the colleges of applied arts and technology as a result of the significant recession through which we have all recently suffered.

I ask the member to look carefully at the statistics for preceding years, which demonstrate clearly that the graduates of colleges of applied arts and technology have almost achieved parity with the graduates of universities in the area of employment.

It is obvious that the courses and programs provided at the colleges of applied arts and technology must remain relevant and must be in the direction which most employers require. That has been a very specific requirement which has been placed before the administrators and the boards of all of the colleges for the past three years. They have been working diligently to ensure that they maintain the relevance of the courses and programs provided. When we do have some further improvement in economic conditions, I am sure the success rate of graduates of colleges of applied arts and technology will achieve the levels which they have achieved in the past.

On the basis of one year's statistics as a result of a very severe recession, I do not believe the honourable member can suggest the colleges are failing to do the job they were designed to do.

Mr. Allen: The question is not addressed to the colleges, nor to the quality of their education nor to their capacity to deliver well-trained students. That might be a subject for another debate.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: The question surely is that in the face of this kind of failure of graduates of the system to secure even levels of employment that the same age group, 15 to 24 broadly speaking, secures is something the ministry and the government need to look at very seriously.

May I ask the minister in particular if she is familiar with the statistics for French graduates, which are significantly worse: 37 per cent as against 22.5 per cent. Will she tell us what specifically she is doing with respect to the problems of French graduates, which are obviously not just simply those related to the economy as such?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is obvious that the member is using his information in very selective fashion. If he looks carefully at the record of employment, even for university graduates within the past 18 months, he will find there has been a significant decline in the rate of employment within a six-month period for a relatively large number of university graduates.

That does not mean there is not an appropriate program being provided, nor that the opportunities for employment will not improve in the future. It is, I believe, the result of the difficulty employers have in finding the opportunity to employ large numbers of our young people, even though they have been trained appropriately. That is in the process of being turned around at present. I would hope the member would provide some support for employers in that turnaround and encourage them to begin the process of hiring those graduates.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of a supplementary nature relating to a very controversial aspect of the operation of our community colleges in line with some of what the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) was saying and drawing upon a conversation we had here last week.

It has to do with the fact that some community colleges -- and I will be quite specific in mentioning Algonquin in Ottawa -- for both general and quota programs continue to make no bones of the fact that they use a random selection, a lottery, for the admission of people. How in 1984 can any of us, least of all the minister, tolerate such an inequitable, ass-backwards scheme as that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I regret the unparliamentary language used by my colleague.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I would be the first to agree it was unparliamentary. I will withdraw those remarks and substitute others therefor.

As recently as yesterday I had a panel of guidance people in Pembroke tell me exactly that. For both general and quota programs, Algonquin College make no bones of the fact that, regardless of whether one has 90 per cent or 62 per cent, one is subjected to a lottery. Is that not ridiculous and absolutely preposterous in 1984?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In those areas in which there is not a limited enrolment problem, it is indeed iniquitous. It is not the policy of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The ministry has proposed, as a result of much discussion and a great deal of consultation with the entire college system and with the educational system as a whole, the use of the lottery system only where all of the other mechanisms or factors related to the appropriateness of admission have been exhausted and there are more qualified applicants than there are places. It is only in those circumstances that colleges are permitted to use the lottery system. Among almost all of the colleges, that is the only place in which that system is used.

Mr. Bradley: It is not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is too.

Mr. Allen: I would like to express my admiration for the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) whose question period technique gets him two supplementaries in the place of one.

Mr. Speaker: He asked the same question twice.

Mr. Allen: Some of the disciplines that have very high statistics of unemployment are ones in which students have been led very strongly to believe in recent years their prospects would be just the reverse.

For example, in business administration, computer programming and data processing, the unemployment rates are 22 per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. For medical laboratory technicians, the unemployment rate is 39 per cent and for radiography it is 80 per cent. In computer sciences technology, computer systems design and electrical engineering technology, the unemployment rates are 16 per cent, 21 per cent, and 27 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister make representation personally to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) to ensure adequate, well-funded programs are available that will take up the slack in employment in these skills? Should not the minister be enlarging the opportunity in the colleges rather than restricting access?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are not restricting access. We have been attempting diligently to accommodate the increased demand for college enrolment and have done that relatively successfully over the last several years. Of course, there are variations in the rate of employment of graduates of various programs in various years. If the member wants to use statistics in that way, I suppose he can prove almost whatever he wants to prove.

I would remind him that one of the major responsibilities of the program advisory committees and of the boards of governors of all the colleges is to review every program annually. This is to ensure the program offering is relevant and provides the necessary information and knowledge for the students in order to achieve employment appropriately. It also ensures that what is required by the employers is being met within the program. Employability of graduates is a significant part of that.

The colleges were requested four years ago to do this on an annual basis and almost all of them are doing it diligently. I doubt we can ask them to do more at the present time. The member really does not need to tell me what my job is in regard to asking for more money for the educational system. I do it with great regularity, great enthusiasm and reasonable success.

TREATMENT FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Can he inform the House whether or not his ministry is considering covering under the Ontario health insurance plan the hyperbaric oxygen treatment for persons suffering from multiple sclerosis?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the short answer at the moment is no. The treatment to which the honourable member refers is not yet recognized by the medical profession as a treatment. It is still in its experimental stages.

Provision has been made, in at least one instance of the experimentation going on, to cover the cost of the research through a grant from PSI. This would include the cost that would normally be passed along to the patient. But that is not generally the case. It is not the practice for OHIP to cover the cost of experimental treatments.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister should consider the tragedy that multiple sclerosis represents. The most recent case referred to my office involved a husband who was desperate to assist his wife for the sake of the family. Their doctor told them that were he in the wife's situation he would have already signed up for the treatment. These are treatments which, as the minister knows, cost $120 apiece. A series of 20 costs $2,400. Given these facts, will the minister not consider the possibility of coverage, particularly if results are positive?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Whether or not the treatment is effective is a matter of professional judgement on the part of the medical profession. I would suggest that if the individual's physician is of that opinion, the appropriate place to communicate that would be to the appropriate medical body, which could indicate its approval of it as a recognized treatment procedure. The treatment would then be reflected under the OHIP schedule of payment.

I have very little by way of alternative in the absence of that, because there may well be a number of experimental procedures that are being examined at any given time. Until such time as their efficacy is demonstrated, even those of us who see the most tragic of situations in terms of human health would be hard pressed to suggest that a procedure ought to be endorsed before we can be sure it is an appropriate procedure.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell us exactly what we should recommend to such families? I have had two of them in my office in the past week. Is there some way the minister can speed up the process? Would he consider funding a pilot project to look into the benefits of the hyperbaric treatment? Some of the doctors are telling these people that at least one in three is assisted by this treatment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is a research project that is presently being funded not by the ministry, but through PSI.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: When is the report due?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was tempted.

In the case of the honourable member's constituents or of those who made the inquiries of him, I would suggest he might wish to find out more about the specifics and perhaps refer them or have their physician refer them to that project.

TORONTO ISLAND AIRPORT

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Nixon: You were just down talking to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Piché: The minister is well aware of the recent announcement that the federal government will spend more than $4 million on improvements at Toronto Island Airport. Since the Island Airport is a downtown airport, the minister is also aware of the importance of the role it will play in handling traffic not only from the south but from northern Ontario. The minister is also aware that further improvements such as a bridge or tunnel are contemplated at a further cost of approximately $9 million.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Piché: Keeping in mind the minister is also aware that this airport should be available to all the people of Ontario, will he take steps to ensure that both phases of the project are expedited and brought to a successful conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the honourable member for giving me some advance notice of this question. It is properly directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), and I certainly will bring it to his attention.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs works very closely with that ministry in the development of an overall transportation policy that will assist people living in northern Ontario. Of course, we are quite anxious to see improvements in the Toronto area that will expedite and facilitate the movement of traffic from northern Ontario.

Mr. Piché: The minister is also aware that the Dash-8 aircraft will be in service in the north this fall and that Toronto Island Airport could play a key role for this aircraft for service into and out of northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just point out to the honourable member that if the minister is aware, he does not have to be reminded. Would the member please put his question.

3 p.m.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, that is rather unfair.

Would the minister also ensure that this aircraft will have a long future by talking to some of his colleagues in Ottawa, such as MP Michael Wilson, who is making some very negative remarks about de Havilland? A word or two to the next Prime Minister of this country, Brian Mulroney, will also help, because he is not helping things any.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as we in northern Ontario are all aware, we hope to have two Dash-8 aircraft in service, one this fall and another about a year from now. At present we are looking at a number of alternative routes and schedules that apply not only in northern Ontario but I am hopeful that for the first time this new, exciting aircraft will venture out of northern Ontario, possibly into Manitoba and possibly into the Toronto area.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs indicated in his first response that this should more properly be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He also followed by saying he would do that and come back with information.

Would either he or his colleague make a complete report to us on any improvements that are being made not only for aircraft but also in the roads, which are in pretty bad shape, and in rail service; a complete transportation report on the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member had been reading my statements and the speeches I have been making in northern Ontario recently, he would have noticed that $111 million is being spent in northern Ontario in this fiscal year for improvement of the highway system alone and for improvements in the transportation system.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Northern Affairs is talking to Michael Wilson in Ottawa, will he remind him that his ministry has guaranteed the purchase of two of those aircraft, and if de Havilland does go down the drain he will not only lose his investment but will also be unable to ensure a level of services for feeder lines in northern Ontario, which might be subverted by the actions of his colleagues in Ottawa?

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the government benches had the last question, if we are going to go around the chamber the way we usually do, I would think this side should have the next question. We had only the supplementary here and we did not have the next question.

Mr. Speaker: In order to be consistent, as we have done in the past -- I would ask you first of all to resume your seat.

Following the rotation that we have, we had a new question and a supplementary on this side of the House; we had a supplementary on this side of the House, which I called as a final supplementary. However, because we have two parties on this side of the House, I have always recognized the right of both parties to have a supplementary.

Now, minister, do you remember the question?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the honourable member's question, I should preface my reply by pointing out that I have a certain bias towards de Havilland, being a former bush pilot myself and having great pride in the product de Havilland has produced over the last 50-odd years. I am very confident, in view of the Prime Minister of Canada's statement in the House of Commons that he would support the production of the Dash-8 by de Havilland. I am confident that will happen.

I also want to point out to members of the House that this aircraft has already flown and the results of those tests are very encouraging. In fact, they exceed expectations.

LOCATION OF INCINERATOR

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment and has to do with the study, in which his ministry is involved, of the location of a garbage incinerator in downtown Ottawa.

The minister will recall he and I exchanged correspondence on this issue, and I guess it was in one of the first letters he sent to me that he wrote at the bottom: "Let's keep in touch. If I can be of further help, let me know."

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Roy: I am asking for further help now. The minister will recall that one of the reasons for locating this incinerator either in the Coventry Road area of Ottawa or in the Lebreton Flats was that the government wanted to sell the steam generated from this incinerator to the federal government for heating federal government buildings.

Will the minister now revise his plans in view of the fact the federal government has now decided not to purchase heat or steam from this incinerator? Given these circumstances, what would be the motivation for locating such an incinerator in the midst of an urban centre? What would be the motivation for locating it there if the government has no clients? Why would it not be put somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member is aware, the lead government with respect to the location of incinerators or energy-from-waste programs -- in some instances they are very similar -- is the local level of government. In other words, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is the level of government that will make the decision with respect to the location, the economics and capital cost of that facility. All these will be determined by the local government.

We come in, as I indicated to the member at the bottom of the letter I sent to him, to attempt to be as helpful as we possibly can. One of the things he perhaps does not realize about this government is that we are always attempting to be helpful to people.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Roy: I had a second left when I got up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I was watching very closely. Would the member please resume his seat.

Mr. Roy: The ball was in the air.

Mr. Speaker: The ball was dead when you stood up.

Mr. Kerrio: Baseball is starting today. The tie goes to the runner.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not know whether you noticed, but the television press left when the best part of question period came forward. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) had very important questions that probably will not be seen by television viewers. I am not sure whether the attention span of the electronic press does not extend for a full 60 minutes, but if it does not, I cannot understand why they all leave in a body when one of the kingfish up there gives the signal that it is all over.

If they are going to continue to do that, as is their right, perhaps we could ask them at least to oil their tripods, not to drop their lenses and to turn out the lights when they leave.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this is your chamber because you are in charge of it. Do you not think it is time we introduce television coverage of the proceedings of this Legislature so that the citizens of Ontario could see what was going on? This is your chamber.

I do not care what the Premier (Mr. Davis) thinks. What does the Speaker think about this nonsense that goes on daily? After the leaders leave, the cameras go down and everybody leaves the place willy-nilly.

Mr. Speaker: Contrary to what you think, it is not my chamber; it is all the members' chamber. I am in the hands of the members when it comes to decisions of that nature. If it is your wish to reintroduce that, fine.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This deals with this very important question. When I directed a question to the government House leader (Mr. Wells) on this, he was reluctant to have the electronic Hansard introduced into the House, but because you are probably the most prestigious and impartial person in this House, would you not be prepared to prevail upon those two forces which have been the worst forces in preventing this kind of access for the public to the members of the Ontario Legislature in their legislative duties, namely the leader of the government and last year's president of the press gallery, to influence them to have second thoughts about the introduction of an electronic Hansard in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to enlighten the member and tell him I do not have any more influence over one side of the House than the other.

The proper place to discuss this matter would be at the Board of Internal Economy. If anybody wishes to have this matter rediscussed --

Mr. Martel: We have invited those people for more than a year, Mr. Speaker, and they haven't come yet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East can put it on the next agenda.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You were supposed to invite TVOntario and other officials to meet with us. That was decided a number of months ago. My friend who is now occupying the Minister of Revenue's chair, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), will recall they were supposed to be invited to attend a meeting so we could discuss the costs and implications. That has not been discharged nor has it been accomplished to this time. I would like to know when it is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker: This is a very unusual question period.

I would remind the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that at the last meeting where this was discussed, many people made representations and presentations. It was my understanding at the end of that meeting there would not be any further discussions because obviously the matter was dead.

Mr. Martel: I would suggest that you in fact asked the government House leader, who indicated we would have representations from TVOntario and any other interested people with respect to the discussion of that particular matter. I am still waiting for those people to be invited.

Mr. Speaker: I will take a look at the minutes and see what they say. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the best way to deal with the electronic media would be to keep it out for a week and see what happens, but I will not say that.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 286 people which is similar to the one I introduced last week. It reads:

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil, et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés par la présente pétition, demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, let me present this petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations, and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Middlesex, Oriole, Durham East, Durham West and St. David, I table the following petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 percent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations, and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), I table the following petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We the undersigned electors of Wentworth appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law for the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

"The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools that are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right. Parents of these schools also face a form of financial jeopardy through a lack of access to the taxes they pay in support of education. We ask you to change the situation."

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Runciman from the select committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee's report and moved adoption of its recommendations.

On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Andrewes moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Dean, first reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Energy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enable the Ministry of Energy to more effectively carry out its current responsibility.

The bill has four aspects.

First, it encourages the prudent use of energy, and the development of alternative sources of energy will be made more explicit in the ministry's mandate. The reference to alternative sources of energy will explicitly include those sources which are renewable, as well as energy recovered from waste.

Second. the ministry will have greater flexibility in the choice of means for carrying out its mandate and will be better able to take advantage of the wide range of participation and financing mechanisms which are in current use in the private sector.

Third, those who receive financial assistance from the ministry will be obliged to account for their use of that assistance.

Fourth, the requirement for order-in-council approval of any delegation of powers by the minister to the deputy minister or senior officials will be deleted, bringing the act in this respect in line with most others.

ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Walker, first reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces two improvements to the act.

The first change applies the same requirements of time limits to requests for sales tax grant eligibility as currently applied to applications for property tax grants.

The second amendment gives me the authority to waive collection of any amounts overpaid or paid to seniors in error in special circumstances where it would be unreasonable to insist on full repayment.

These two changes will make the act more equitable, while further streamlining its administration.

3:20 p.m.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this bill would prevent physicians and practitioners from billing their patients for amounts exceeding the amount payable by the Ontario health insurance plan. In other words, it would end extra billing.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, first reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an old chestnut that was first introduced in 1974 and was reintroduced five times subsequent to that. The purpose of the bill is to enable independent grocery store owners to sell beer and Ontario wines.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Wine Content Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mr. Speaker: Carried.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to speak on this bill before we put the vote?

Mr. Speaker: I think we already did. However, if the --

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it is normal to have a second reading debate on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: There normally is, but I asked for it. Does the member for Oriole have any opening remarks?

Mr. Martel: Do you have an opening statement? How could it possibly carry?

Mr. Riddell: You people are so disorganized. It is high time you were shoved out.

Mr. Speaker: Do not get excited.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading today the Wine Content Amendment Act, 1984. This bill will extend the application of the act from its current expiry date of August 31, 1984, to August 31, 1986.

As I am sure the members will recall, the Wine Content Act was enacted to permit Ontario wineries to blend imported grape juice with their own juice for a limited period of time to allow them the opportunity to plant and bring into production greater quantities of high-quality hybrid grapes. This extension of the act's expiry date was requested by the industry.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak briefly on this bill. As we know, it is not a complex piece of legislation. Nevertheless, it is an important one for the Ontario wine industry.

This act has been in effect for a number of years. I believe it originated about 1977, and since that time we have had a vast improvement in the quality of our wines in Ontario so they compare favourably with wines from several, if not all, other countries of the world.

I should state at this time that unfortunately the wine industry is suffering quite a bit, especially this year and last year but more so in the current year, because it seems to have decreasing sales. This is most unfortunate, given the tremendous progress in the quality of their product which I referred to previously. It is unusual when one looks at the circumstances. On the one hand, we have a product which everybody acknowledges is getting better and on the other hand we have a decreasing share of the market by that same excellent product. That is very unfortunate.

I will not spend any great time discussing remedies to all this or the causes of it, but we know that European currencies having decreased in proportion to ours certainly has lowered the price of wines coming from Europe to such a point that one can buy imported wines for approximately the same price, and sometimes even less, than some of our Ontario varieties.

That is coupled with the fact that we still have an unfortunate situation in this province which we could refer to as Niagaraphobia, the morbid fear of drinking Ontario wine. There is no valid reason for this. Like most phobias, it happens without any logical reason, but nevertheless it is still there.

It is my hope that the government will now undertake to assist the Ontario wine industry not only by the passage of this bill but also by other measures to enhance the sale of Ontario wines in comparison with products coming from outside the province.

Only a few moments ago, I introduced a petition in this House requesting that Ontario wine be sold in grocery stores in this province. That is not the subject of this bill, but I think we have to address ourselves to a whole variety of methods to improve the sales of Ontario wine.

I am glad to see the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is here, because he would be very interested in improving the sales of Ontario wines.

We know Ontario wines are given special privileges by means of this act, the Wine Content Act. We know Ontario wines are also afforded special privileges under the Liquor Control Act which, for instance, provides that only Ontario wineries can operate these wine boutiques across the province. This is a special program that is available only to Ontario wineries in the hope it will assist them in marketing their product and get the consumers of this province to consume more Ontario wine versus other varieties.

I cannot let the occasion go by without asking the member for Brock and all his colleagues to support the private member's bill I will be bringing in this Legislature only two weeks from this Thursday, at which time we will have the opportunity to put on record whether we are serious about assisting the Ontario wine industry. I am sure all members of the government, especially the member for Brock, his colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), perhaps the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) and all the others representing constituencies that have a grape-growing agricultural industry or wineries in their area as well as all others in this Legislature, will seize that opportunity to put on the record that they are in favour of expanding this very worthwhile industry in the province.

3:30 p.m.

It has been only two or three years since Ontario wineries succeeded in making 50 per cent of the wine consumed in this province. Now we see that percentage has slid right back down to the low 40s. That is very unfortunate for the agricultural industry, the wine industry, the grape growers and so forth.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And for our land use policy.

Mr. Boudria: That is quite true. It is interesting that the minister brought up the land use policy, because this same government is permitting almost everything to be paved over, especially our very fertile lands on the Niagara Peninsula, which could be growing not only the products we see now but all kinds of other agricultural products as well. We see this happening to some of the best agricultural land in the whole world.

The interjection of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) is particularly apropos. I hope his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) takes note of it and stops this business of paving over our prime agricultural land in Ontario. I hope he puts the land to a very worthwhile use such as increasing our grape growing in this province as well as to all kinds of other worthwhile agricultural uses.

I am particularly glad to hear the Deputy Premier mention how important it is to preserve our agricultural land, especially in the riding of Brock and in other areas where they grow such excellent products as the grapes that are used to make Ontario wines.

In conclusion, I want to say it is my hope that in the not too distant future we will not have to incorporate the use of grapes from elsewhere, or grape juice, or foreign wines with our own wine. It is my hope that we will be able to be self-sufficient in all varieties of products that are necessary to make the very fine wines we now make in Ontario.

Having said that, we recognize there is a shortage of certain varieties of grapes at the moment and therefore we do need this type of legislation. On behalf of our party, we are pleased to support Bill 4, the Wine Content Amendment Act.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has said, this is a rather simple bill we have before us. It is also a noncontroversial bill. I think that will prove to be the case.

The honourable member also indicated it was an important bill. As one of those who come from the Niagara Peninsula, having a substantial grape growing industry in my own riding, I am very conscious of how important it is.

The purpose of the bill is to have the kinds of wine that will promote their use both within and outside this province. In this respect, the Wine Content Act has been successful in developing wines which, as has already been said, are equal to those of any place.

I want to make it clear at the very outset of my comments that I am not strongly supporting this bill for the improvement of the wine so there will be a sale for it. I am not really promoting additional alcohol consumption.

All of us must realize that in our society the situation has become pretty serious with regard to the degree of consumption of alcohol and the effect it is having on our society. When one looks at the number of road accidents, one finds 50 per cent of the drivers who are killed were under the influence of alcohol. It matters not whether one looks at broken homes or at the incidence of violence, much of the cause is the excessive consumption of alcohol.

I would like to point out that the consumption of alcohol is increasing quite dramatically. I have tables here from the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research Foundation showing that per capita alcohol consumption in this province has increased from 2.81 gallons a year in 1928 to 4.86 gallons in 1945, 8.77 gallons in 1965 and now 11.5 gallons. Also, an example of some of the harm it has caused, the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver has increased from 4.4 during those same years to something like 15 at the present time. Therefore, I am not standing in my place to say there should be more consumption of alcohol generally in this province, because I believe it is damaging to our society.

Having said that, this bill does not do that. This bill does two things. It means we will have a product that is equal to products from other countries. Therefore, we will encourage consumption of our own wines rather than those that are imported.

Mr. Breithaupt: If you have to drink it, it may as well be the good stuff.

Mr. Swart: That is right.

It is also true to say, and I believe this is statistically shown to be true in this province and in this nation, that our alcoholism is by and large not due to the consumption of wines. For a variety of reasons that form of alcohol, because it is consumed in the home and because it is consumed at the table, causes the least degree of social problems and the least excess in the consumption of alcohol.

There is no question that failure to pass this bill would worsen the situation we have in Ontario at the present time. It has made our wines very successful. The member for Brock may be referring to some of these as well, I do not know.

Ontario wines have won competitions recently throughout the world. I am told there was one in Yugoslavia in a place called Ljubljana. They have a wine fair there, and it is a very popular international wine fair. In 1982, the Hallmark Cream sherry from Chateau-Gai won the gold medal, a silver medal and a bronze medal. In May 1983, Jordan's gold Patina sherry won an award, and the Barnes Heritage Estate won two silver medals.

In the international wine and spirits competition in Bristol, England, in 1982, Bright's won a gold medal for its Gewurztraminer. Two silver medals were won by the Pinot Champagne.

In the 1982 winery unlimited competition in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, basically for wines in the United States and Canada east of the Rocky Mountains, Bright's won a silver and three bronze medals; Inniskillin, one silver and one bronze; Jordan and Ste-Michelle Cellars Ltd., one silver; and London Winery, two bronze for a white table wine and a silver for vermouth.

There is no question, Ontario wines are second to none any place in the world and can hold their own in sales with fair competition.

3:40 p.m.

This bill is essential at this time because there has perhaps never been a more serious time for our wine industry or in fact for the whole grape-growing industry. For instance, the sale of grapes for processing into grape juice -- and this has been growing over the years quite substantially -- had built up to 17,000 gallons in 1982. That dropped to 12,000 gallons in 1983, a drastic cut in the number of the grapes here that went into producing that grape juice. That is just 70 cent in one year. It dropped down to 70 per cent of what it had been the previous year; largely because of imports and also, I am told, because of the cheap citrus fruit juice.

The sale of Canadian wine -- and this is an extremely serious situation -- this January and February was 20 per cent below that of last January and February; and in February the sale was lower than in January. I have not seen the figures for March -- I do not know whether they are out yet or not -- but they were anticipating they would be down again, perhaps 30 per cent below what they were last year for the sale of Canadian wines.

This is largely because of the tremendous invasion of the Canadian market by French wines, which has perhaps been due to three causes. The first was the abolition of the handling charge that had been put in place by this government from October 1981 to June 1983. It was 65 cents a bottle on imported wine, which caused it to be somewhat higher in price and assisted our own industry substantially. But I recognize, and I guess the government probably recognized when it was put in, that it was contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and it eventually was abolished. I have to admit there was no alternative to that.

But the main reason for the increase in the importation of the French wines has been the devaluation of the French currency. We think our currency has dropped in relation to that of the United States, and so it has.

Mr. Boudria: It is the second-strongest currency in the world.

Mr. Swart: Yes; but having said that, European currencies have dropped quite dramatically compared to our currency.

To put the whole thing in perspective, we have to say their currencies went up quite dramatically compared to our currency five, six or seven years ago, but now they have dropped. This has meant that French wines have come down substantially in price and are undercutting and almost unfairly competing with Niagara wines.

There has also been a substantial overproduction of wines in Europe. Partly because of the world economic depression consumption has been falling, but the farmers in those counties have also endeavoured to recoup some of their losses by growing more. Therefore, we have this surplus of wine, and there is reason to believe there is some dumping of it in Canada.

I am told we are now importing something like nine million gallons of wine from France. That is a 100 per cent increase in the amount of imports of the major brands in just one year, and it cannot help but have a very serious effect. We are still importing something like five million gallons from Italy, plus substantial amounts from Hungary and the United States. We produce only about 10 million gallons of wine here. When we import nine million from France, that gives an indication of the way it cuts into our locally produced wines.

In fact I am told -- and this seems almost unbelievable -- that imports of grapes and grape products into this nation rank about third in agricultural products; only two other farm products are ahead of grape products and their by-products. So much for the pious statements of the Minister of Agriculture and Food about self-sufficiency. There is no question but that the current situation is approaching a crisis.

There was an article in the Hamilton Spectator on this subject dated March 30, 1984, which some of those members who are interested in this industry may have read. It is by Paul Legall, whom some members will know. He was in St. Catharines for a time. He manned the St. Catharines bureau and worked for the mayor.

He wrote: "The Niagara wine industry is fighting for its life against the threat of French imports being 'dumped' in Ontario at 'ridiculously low prices,' according to an industry spokesman. And, if something is not done soon to curb the French invasion, Donald Campbell predicts the Ontario grape-growing industry could disappear altogether.

"As vice-president and general manager of Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. of Niagara Falls, Mr. Campbell said he will join other industry officials in attempting to persuade both levels of government to stop the French 'predatory pricing policy.'

"Earlier this week a spokesman for the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board announced sales of domestic wines slipped about 20 per cent in the first quarter this year and native products now represent only about 40 per cent of all the wine sold in the province.

"The slumping sales have already resulted in layoffs and shutdowns at several Niagara wineries."

If there is anything we do not need in the Niagara Peninsula, it is more layoffs and shutdowns. The Niagara region has the unenviable record over the last year and a half of either leading or being second or third in the whole nation in the level of unemployment.

Mr. Legall goes on to say: "At Chateau-Gai, where more than 50 workers have been laid off indefinitely, the plant is operating 'hand-to-mouth.'

"Jeff Ward, a Barnes Wines executive and chairman of the Wine Council of Ontario, also sees gloomy times ahead because of the French invasion."

I will not read the remainder of that article. However, anywhere one goes in the grape-growing or grape-processing communities this year, one finds what appears to be a crisis. This applies to the grape growers and the wineries as well.

I know the answers are not simple or easy. There was a 65-cent handling charge which helped while it was in place, but it is gone now. In its place the government established a form of floor price which at least raised the price of the cheap wines that were coming into this nation. There was an agreement between the wine council and the government, but it really did not help a great deal. The cheap wines were coming in at a price a bit higher and this caused people to buy some of the better wines. The French wines have taken the place of those cheap wines and undercut our own production.

Because of GATT, I know we cannot provide a differential in taxes between domestic and foreign imports. I also know successful prosecution of dumping is difficult. I recall a report not very long ago -- it was last year, I believe -- in which the federal government concluded Italian wines were being dumped in this nation. However, it also came to the conclusion it was not hurting our wine industry, so nothing took place.

I guess the onus is on a commodity group to initiate action on dumping, and that is costly. I am told potato farmers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have taken action against dumping from the United States and it has cost them more than $250,000. Of course, by the time a final decision is given, the crisis --

Mr. McGuigan: The Americans are charging dumping.

Mr. Swart: Yes, the member is right. The Americans are charging dumping and they proved their case. However, it has cost them more than $250,000, and by the time a decision is given, the crisis may well be past. I know it is not easy.

Mr. McGuigan: We did the opposite in British Columbia.

Mr. Swart: Yes.

3:50 p.m.

They say there are still areas where government can and must act to protect our consumers. I suggest the federal Liberals have not been nearly diligent enough in pursuing the prima facie evidence of dumping. One gets the clear impression they are engaged in tradeoffs. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food would not raise too much objection to the importation of wine in order to sell our Ontario potatoes or corn or wheat. This kind of tradeoff is hurting the grape producers in the Niagara Peninsula.

From my understanding and investigation, I see no reason the federal government could not place import quotas on wine imports as it does on auto imports. Of course, there are not as many people affected and thus it does not do it, but it could put quotas on wine imports and stop many of them. This tradeoff prevents the feds from doing it.

I suggest Ontario could find ways of helping if it really wanted to. There are measures of assistance or stabilization payments to the growers which would perhaps mean they could sell their grapes to the wineries more cheaply. The growers could keep the price down if stabilization payments were being made by the Ontario government. I suggest that is one way the government could look at to assist them. I presume there are methods of funnelling funds to the processors and the wineries so that the retail price of our Niagara wines can be kept below the imports and, thus, our sales would stay up.

I recognize this is not the most desirable way of doing it, but we have to make our wines competitive, and they are competitive in quality. Even to use these methods of assisting the wineries in one way or another, or assisting the growers through stabilization programs, are better than letting the grape-growing industry go down the tube. We cannot afford to do that.

My party and I fully support the lengthening of the duration of the Wine Content Act to keep up the quality of the wine. I am convinced that when the grape growers of Ontario, in particular in the Niagara Peninsula, find they can grow the grapes and keep up the quality, they will not be in here asking for an extension of this kind of legislation. I say that because they now feel and the whole industry feels that it is necessary to extend this legislation.

We are not undercutting the growers by permitting the wineries to use 15 per cent, as it is now, of imported grapes or wine to blend so that we have that better quality, though I realize there are some exceptions that can be made to this. Therefore, we support this bill. I just say this bill is not enough in itself to deal with the problems facing the growers and the wineries.

I am certain the Deputy Premier agrees and will speak on this because it has greater effect in his area, where there are more grape growers than in my area. I hope he will talk about some of the alternatives his government, either alone or in conjunction with the federal government, will be putting in place so that the grape growers and all the workers and companies -- the whole grape industry -- will remain viable and we will not see a further worsening of the economic situation in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I recognize that until we reach a time when we can fill that market ourselves, we require this imported juice.

I must confess I have more than a passing interest in it because some five years ago I planted seven acres of wine grapes on my farm at Cedar Springs.

Mr. Nixon: You must be getting rich by now.

Mr. McGuigan: I hate to disappoint the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), but it costs a lot of money to get into this business. It costs about $5,000 to plant an acre of grapes.

Mr. Nixon: How many acres did you plant?

Mr. McGuigan: Seven.

Mr. Swart: You don't get the money back the same year as you do with soybeans.

Mr. McGuigan: I added that to my deficit.

I like to give members a bit of history whenever the Niagara Peninsula and the growing of grapes are mentioned. The industry began in the counties of Essex and Kent where at one time there were extensive vineyards, especially on Pelee Island, as the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) has said. I understand they are now returning and planting quite an acreage on that island.

In the little village of Cedar Springs where I live there is an old store. The building is not so old; it was rebuilt about 30 years ago on the foundation of a building that had burned. That foundation goes about two stories into the ground. Normally, a basement goes down only one storey. They tell me the reason for the depth of the basement is that about 100 years ago it was a wine cellar. In talking to the people in the Niagara Peninsula about the pressures on those lands, it is sad to say, the industry is moving our way.

Another interesting point is that when tobacco came along, about the time of the First World War, it pushed the grapes growers out. It pushed them into the Niagara Peninsula, and the industry never came back again because the wineries became established there. Vegetables, tobacco and other crops took up similar lands in Kent and Essex. It is ironic today, when we see the tobacco industry retreating, that possibly the grape industry will recover its importance in our area of southwestern Ontario.

Some terms come to mind concerning the pressing and development of grapes, one of which is foxy. I cannot describe this to members because my taste acuity is not that great, but there is a certain taste in grapes that is undesirable. Whenever one tastes this, it will be a poor quality of wine. The people who know call this a foxy taste.

Each batch of grapes that one squeezes the juice from is called a press. When the grapes settle and the seeds, skins and so on go to the bottom of the fermentation vats, the term used is must. In the ageing of the wines -- they are aged in wooden casks, or they were in previous times -- a certain amount of the alcohol and water evaporated from the wooden casks and ended up --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I am having some trouble in seeing how the member's remarks pertain to Bill 4.

Mr. McGuigan: I was coming right to that. That is called head space. I would ask the minister from Niagara, who is very familiar with this, to be a bit foxy about some of his business activities. I am told a 65-cent handling charge is not against the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade because, for some technical reason, it does fall within the purview of GATT. I would ask him to be a bit foxy and bring that back.

4 p.m.

If this industry is going to survive, the minister must press his cabinet colleagues to bring about some of these measures. I ask them to use their head space to search for all the possible ways we can improve the lot of this industry; such ways as promoting Ontario wine at government receptions and on the transportation systems that fall within the purview of the Ontario government, the trains, buses and airlines that are part of the Ontario government. Now that we have quality wines that can compete with wines from anywhere in the world, the government should pass regulations to see that only Ontario wines are served in those areas where this government has jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but it should be obvious to members of the House that I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of this legislation and to commend those who have already spoken from all sides of the House for their support.

There is no need to repeat the points that have already been made by those who have spoken. I think particularly of the member for Prescott-Russell, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and others who have joined in the very appropriate chorus in drawing attention to the tremendous progress that has been made in the development of Ontario wines with respect to their quality and their availability.

I think it is important that, as part of this debate on the principle of this particular bill, we pay tribute to the growers in Ontario, most of whom come from the Niagara area, for their attention to this matter and to the processors who have responded to the consumer demand for a good quality product.

It is important to know that those of us who share the Niagara region, and I speak to the fact that there are six provincial seats, enjoy a great spirit of unanimity with respect to the keen support we have for the grape-growing industry, knowing the tremendous number of people who are dependent upon it for their economic wellbeing. I want to say in this House that the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Lincoln and the member for Brock have always worked together for the benefit of those who have been involved in this area of activity.

There are a number of factors, of course, that bring us together. We think of the whole question of the appropriate use of the land resources of our area and we recognize that because of certain regulations in the processing of grapes and in the ultimate manufacture in the wine industry, the wineries of our area must use the local product; this in turn makes for the economic viability of those who are engaged in that branch of agriculture, and anything that would threaten this, of course, is of some concern.

Others have already spoken about the support of the government over the years with respect to the replacement of vines, as we recognize the importance of new varieties; indeed, the wine assistance program was enthusiastically supported by my colleagues in government who have responsibilities in the field of Consumer and Commercial Relations and in other ministries.

I want to say quite publicly in the course of the debate on the principle of this bill that the Premier, the present Treasurer and those who have preceded him have been tremendously supportive, as they have recognized the importance of encouraging and supporting this activity in the Niagara region and the economic benefits that flow to those who are engaged in this activity.

The member for Prescott-Russell and others have quite rightly pointed out the factors that are now quite evident in our area concerning the competition on the shelf with respect to these quality products. When one talks about the quality of our wines, along with others one will have watched the growth of the cottage wineries. This is something that has been encouraged by the policies of the government over the years.

Now we face certain challenges for the reasons that have already been enunciated. I can assure members, as I have assured the growers of the Niagara region, this government does not intend to stand idly by without taking appropriate measures that, consistent with our activities in the past, will be seen to continue our support of this industry.

Indeed, we have been faced with these problems over the years and we responded with the handling charge to which the member for Kent-Elgin made some reference. It was found in international quarters to be in violation of agreements entered into by our federal government. We have to become somewhat innovative and creative within the framework of international agreements and understandings to find some way to respond to the present challenge, but respond we must. We certainly have a very strong obligation to do so.

In my view, this is not to be seen as a politically partisan issue. We are talking about land use, industrial strategy and employment and export potentials. These are matters in which we all share a very keen and obvious interest.

Certainly the competition being felt at the moment is the result of a number of factors, not the least of which is the currency matter to which the member for Welland-Thorold made some reference. As the members know, it is part of the international understanding that whatever differentials are now in place with respect to markups cannot be widened. We have a situation in which the domestic product is marked up at a percentage and the imported product is marked up at a higher percentage.

Notwithstanding that, because of other factors, at the moment the imported product seems to be enjoying some preference by way of price on the shelf and that is seen as a very serious threat to the long-term welfare of the wine-growing area. It is something that is going to have to be addressed because it is addressed quite forcefully in other political jurisdictions throughout the world.

Hundreds of people in the Niagara area are dependent upon this industry. That is not to overlook the gradual expansion in other parts of the province. I think we have some obligation, for reasons I have already mentioned, to respond to these concerns.

To a large extent, the ultimate solution will depend upon discussions under way at present to which representatives of the grape growers and the wineries are a party, because we have established task forces and are involved in discussions with respect to these matters.

The bill before us is one we have had the opportunity to discuss in this House from time to time. It really is an indication of the necessity to respond to certain consumer preference in the marketplace with respect to this product. I mention not only the general question with respect to quality but indeed the type of wine.

4:10 p.m.

In answering the call to change over, many of our growers have been involved in the planting of a lot of grapes for red wine. There seems to be a consumer preference in many places for white wine. As a result, in order to maintain ourselves in the marketplace and to respond to the consumer interest with respect to quality of wine generally and type of wine in particular, we have this legislation before us providing an opportunity for blending.

This is a wonderful example of the tremendous co-operation that exists between the agricultural producer and the processor in our area, recognizing in the long term the advantages of cooperating and working together to respond to the demands of the marketplace. I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to both the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario for this spirit of co-operation and working together, because the legislation comes forward with the enthusiastic support of both those groups.

However, in this House we can understand the concern that is felt for many of the grape growers of the province as they work in their vineyards with respect to all the expenditures that are now required to ensure a good quality crop this coming fall, looking ahead at the prospects for the marketing of those grapes; and of course one knows where the principal buyers of those grapes are and the implications involved. It is hoped in the weeks that lie ahead we will be able to find some solution to the immediate problems that face this industry.

I am one of the six who has the privilege of being a member from the Niagara area. I am sure we are joined by members from other parts of the province. Just last week when I was in Windsor I had the opportunity to speak to those who are involved in the industry there, for the reasons the member for Kent-Elgin has pointed out.

I pay a special word of thanks to all members of the House for their support of this bill, and I say to the member for Kent-Elgin it certainly has been a matter of government policy for some time that, in the extension of hospitality by the government of Ontario, we have the opportunity to share our pride in these quality wines.

I am just now back from a luncheon the government of the province established for the president of Portugal. We had the opportunity to taste some of the finest wines in the world, from the Niagara area. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) would confirm that, because they were both there, enjoying that vintage from a winery located on Creek Road in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, in the constituency of Brock, which is the closest I can really come to identifying the brand without running into some difficulty in the House this afternoon, although I would be glad to provide privately Liquor Control Board of Ontario numbers for all the brands of all the wines --

Mr. Nixon: Numbers? What kind of generosity is that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: LCBO numbers by way of identification.

Mr. Mackenzie: How about a bottle itself?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would want to stop short of that type of promotion. May I say on behalf of 993 grape growers and all their families, their relatives and friends how much I appreciate the support. I urge all members of the House to recognize the importance of this great activity.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat presumptuous of me to speak on this topic, particularly after the member for Brock has spoken more or less as the ministerial windup, wrapup and mopup. I understand the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), in his capacity as parliamentary assistant, is the windup speaker.

I thought I would make a comment or two about this because this bill has been before the House on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, I sent a request to the library for one of the earlier debates. I do not believe it was the first one. I was just looking at the material the library provided. It is dated December 14, 1976. I notice on second reading of the same bill, the members of the New Democratic Party on that occasion all voted against the bill, but their views have changed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What date is that?

Mr. Nixon: It is 1976. I felt it was worth mentioning.

Hon. Mr. Welch: How did you vote?

Mr. Nixon: We voted for it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not want to leave on the record that the New Democratic Party voted against the original Wine Content Act because that was not the case.

The minister will remember the meetings which we had over that bill, and the fact that the then member for Wentworth was here at that time and he and I led this in the House and we voted unanimously in support of the Wine Content Act when it was originally introduced. I believe it was 1976. Perhaps the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is looking at the wrong bill.

The Acting Speaker: That is one of the most legitimate points of order I have ever heard.

Mr. Nixon: I think it is too. I could be mistaken, but I am looking at the Hansard material the library sent me, dated December 14, 1976, Wine Content Act, Bill 135:

"The House divided on Hon. Mr. Handleman's motion for second reading of Bill 135, which was approved on the following vote:

"Ayes" so and so, "Nixon," so and so.

"Nays: Angus, Bounsall, Breaugh, Bryden, Burr, Cassidy, Davidson (Cambridge), Davison (Hamilton Centre), Deans, Dukszta, Ferrier, Foulds, Germa, Gigantes, Godfrey, Grande, Laughren, Lawlor, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Samis, Sandeman, Warner, Wildman, Ziemba -- 29."

I am very glad. --

Mr. Breithaupt: A lot of them are not here any more.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my only explanation would be --

The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Renwick: -- it as immediately before another referendum in High Park.

Mr. Nixon: I feel a good deal of credit should be directed towards the member for Brock and the spokesmen for the two opposition parties as well, but the matter continues to concern me to some extent because we are still going to enable the wine industry to import in order to compete with the industry in Quebec. Certainly there is blending in the wine industry in California, in New York and in British Columbia, but there is always the contention, particularly from the government in this bill, that all we need is a bit more time so we can perfect the vines and the culture of the proper vines in Ontario.

We might as well accept the fact that a certain amount of blending in the wine industry is going to continue for a good long time, probably for as long as the minister and I are sipping, in a purely experimental way. I feel it is necessary for the industry to be supported in any way possible because as the honourable minister himself has explained to me -- I hope I am not divulging anything that should not be made public because this is public knowledge -- the prices of Ontario wines in our liquor and wine stores are perhaps higher than they should be if we want more people to use them in a healthy and proper way.

It is interesting that on Friday of last week we were talking about the tobacco industry and now we are talking about wine. I think tomorrow it will be lotteries, so we will be able to cover the gambit.

When it comes to quality, we do miss the former member for Lincoln, Ross Hall, who also was a very strong advocate of the utilization of our high quality Niagara wines. There were those among my former colleagues in this very party who used to, on rare occasions, indicate quietly that they thought the quality did not come up to the finest French standards. It embarrasses me to even say that, but I can recall our friend Ross Hall on one occasion decided to finally put this to rest. He brought the very best French wines and the very best wines from the Niagara Peninsula into our dining room and set up a wine tasting.

4:20 p.m.

The bottles were set up just like Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola so that one could not tell which was which. I can recall the occasion which involved, among others, my good friend and our former leader, Stuart Smith himself, who as everybody knows is a connoisseur of wine. When the results of this careful comparison were finally made public, Dr. Smith and many others who had sometimes been somewhat critical of these wines had placed the Niagara wines at the very top of the list.

Many members of the House were there on that occasion to verify the fact that it was done as a blind test, and I use that adjective advisedly. They can verify that people who had drunk the finest wines in the capitals of Europe were able, not for any kind of a third-rate competition but in an actual taste test, to pick Ontario wines as the best available in this province.

I have often thought the wine companies could have made much more of that in their efforts to promote their own products. Certainly they have access to the very prettiest ladies, the very best photographers and the very funniest pseudo- ethnics who bounce around trying to sell this wine from time to time. But I do not think their advertising is as good as it might be.

The thing that really puts the kibosh on the wine industry here is the fact that through no fault of its own the prices are too high. Those of us, even in this House, who occasionally take a glass of wine for our stomach's sake often hesitate to do so. With all the taxes and various other requirements, even those of an international nature, we find our own home-produced product is more expensive than it should be in the minds of our fellow citizens, all nine million of them.

I would hope there might be some method in the future whereby this could be remedied. With the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Williams) being advised and assisted by the Deputy Premier himself, I know we can look forward to better days in this regard.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the support of members from all sides of the House on this most important bill.

Mr. McClellan: This is the first time it ever happened.

Mr. Williams: That is quite true. It is a rare occasion.

I am delighted to hear strong statements in support of this legislation from the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Prescott-Russell and the member for Kent-Elgin. Certainly the member for Brock, with his wide experience in this whole industry, made an extraordinary contribution to the debate this afternoon. His being here has contributed greatly to the level of debate. We are thankful to him for being here to support this legislation, along with my colleagues on the other side of the chamber.

I am not going to comment on the reminiscences of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, given that history speaks for itself. He is known to speak with a forked tongue on occasion, and today appears to be no exception.

I feel we must come back to what the main intent of this legislation is all about. I think the members have highlighted the concerns with regard to the legislation in giving very positive support to its enactment. However, I reiterate that, as stated right in the body of the existing legislation, the purpose of the act is to permit the introduction of grapes grown outside Ontario. It is to permit imported wine to be used with wine manufactured in Ontario without reducing the use of Ontario grapes in the content.

This is an extremely important consideration. It is the most succinct way one can speak to concerns about preserving a very important industry within our province, wine processing and grape growing.

The member for Prescott-Russell expressed concern at the outset about the declining marketplace in the short term and about special privileges accorded Ontario wines; and so it should be that we do provide special support where we feel it necessary.

Of course, it would be the ultimate goal and objective to obtain self-sufficiency, which the member for Prescott-Russell suggested we should be striving for. We must be fully aware of the fact that the participants in the industry themselves are making giant strides forward in the direction of self-sufficiency, but I think we all understand and appreciate that this cannot occur overnight.

As the minister stated at the time he introduced this bill for first reading on March 22, considerable progress has been made in the development of high quality Ontario grapes, but the reality of the situation is that the industry still needs access to foreign wine for the purpose of blending. Of course, it is for this reason that the industry itself has come to us asking that the legislation be extended to provide more time to let their efforts be fulfilled in striving towards self-sufficiency.

It has been pointed out that the Wine Council of Ontario and the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board are the important actors in this situation, not only for the purpose of preserving an extremely important industry within one geographic area of the province but also for the purpose of preserving a very important segment of our provincial economy as a whole.

Those two bodies, the wine council and the grape growers' board, in asking the government for extension of the legislation have indicated the progress that has been made in the increased plantings of the preferred hybrid and vinifera varieties during the past 10 years. They do point out, though, that the industry is still faced with an imbalance in raw materials.

It is interesting to note that in 1982 the grapevine census indicated that 10 years earlier there were only approximately 80,000 vines that were growing grapes and now, as recently as 1982, we have 2,165,000 vines with the varieties in question being grown. This again indicates from a quantitative point of view the progress that has been made by the grape growers, and this is indeed a compliment to them.

I should point out at this time that in speaking of the Wine Council of Ontario it would be proper and fitting that the participants of the wine council be identified, because it is certainly the body that represents the producers in Ontario. I must at the same time congratulate Mr. David Diston on his recent election as the new chairman of the wine council. He is known to many people in the wine industry, and it was just last week that his election to this prestigious office was made public.

The members from the grape-growing area of our province will be most aware of Mr. Diston's qualifications, but for the benefit of the other members of the Legislature who are perhaps less informed on these matters, it should be made known that Mr. Diston has a background that includes all aspects of the wine industry, from grape growing to wine making and the selling of packaged wine. He comes as a person well qualified to assume that important post. Again he is to be congratulated.

4:30 p.m.

When we talk about the wine council and the wine producers in Ontario which the council represents in large measure, I must point out, as I am sure most of us know but it bears restating, that there are 14 producers in Ontario, 11 of whom are members of the wine council. This shows that there is very strong participation in and support for the wine council and that it speaks in large measure for the wine producers.

Notwithstanding that my colleague the member for Brock was reluctant out of modesty to put on the record certain brand names in the House this afternoon, I would like to put on the record who the wine producers are in Ontario, because they do represent an extremely important industry.

My colleagues from the Niagara area will be well aware of Andrés Wines Ltd. of Winona and Barnes Wines Ltd. of St. Catharines.

The member for Welland-Thorold pointed out that a number of local wineries have won international awards in recent years. I am delighted he took the time to give credit to these local producers for producing wines of international excellence. Amongst the wineries he mentioned is Barnes Wines, which I referred to a moment ago, and T. G. Bright and Co. Ltd. of Niagara Falls, which have won awards, as pointed out by the member, as well as Inniskillin Wines Inc. There is also Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. of St. Davids, and Chateau-Gai Wines of Niagara Falls, which also has won international awards.

In addition, there is Colio Wines of Harrow. I am sure the member for Kent-Elgin will be delighted to have recognition made of the winery from his area. There is also Hillebrand Estates Winery Ltd. of Niagara-on-the-Lake, and I have referred to Inniskillin Wines Inc., also of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned Jordan and Ste-Michelle Cellars Ltd. of St. Catharines, which also has won international awards, for which it is to be complimented. Outside the Niagara area we have London Winery Ltd., which is a very significant producer in Ontario. We also have one of the smaller wineries, which the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) I think was going to mention but the name of which eluded him; that is Montravin Cellars Ltd. of Beamsville.

In addition to those 11 members of the council, we have three wineries that are more newly upon the scene and making great progress in contributing to the wine production in this province. I refer to the Pelee Island Vineyards of Kingsville, which has its growing facilities right on Pelee Island, the Rief winery of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Charal Winery of Blenheim. While these wineries are not members of the council at this time, nevertheless they are some of the smaller but very active wine producers in the province.

Together as a group of 14, these wine producers are contributing very much to the economy of Ontario.

On the grape growers' side of the partnership that has come to this government asking for extension of the legislation in the interest of the wine industry, as the member for Brock has pointed out, there are now 993 grape growers in Ontario. They are participants of the board, which is one of 22 agricultural marketing boards in Ontario. Collectively, they have 24,000 acres of grapes under production, worth approximately $32 million. It is no small contribution to the economy of Ontario and in particular to the economy of the Niagara area.

I emphasize what the member for Brock was saying a few moments ago about the number of people involved and gainfully employed in the industry. I think that bears highlighting. I believe there are some 1,350 employees working with the wine producers, and in a moment or two I will have the numbers involved in grape growing as well. A very significant contribution is being made by a lot of people who are gainfully employed in this industry.

While it would be preferable to be self-sufficient in the growing of grapes and the production of wine in this province, which we hope the industry will strive for and which in fact it is doing, I think we understand that a moderate balance has been arrived at while we are going through this process. We are allowing a reasonable amount of blending to take place to ensure that the support of the local industries is preserved and that a limited number of imports will be permitted into the wineries' production each year.

Under the legislation, and particularly within the regulations of this act, up to 15 per cent of the grapes used by any winery can be allowed as imports in one year. Last year, by regulation, there was an amendment that allowed a slight upgrading to 18.5 per cent. The content of the wine itself cannot exceed 30 per cent as far as the blending of the imported wine is concerned.

There are very strict controls in existence to ensure there will be a strong involvement of the industry at the local level. I point out that we are not without problems. I will concede that point. Nevertheless, great progress is being made both as to the quality and production of wines and with regard to the blending process.

4:40 p.m.

As I think most members understand and are aware, approximately 80 per cent of the grapes imported into Canada come from California. It is largely the vinifera grape that is introduced here from California. As the member for Welland-Thorold pointed out, grape and grape products rank third in farm products imported into Canada. In making that comment, he took the Minister of Agriculture and Food to task for not going to self-sufficiency and thereby avoiding the necessity of importing these grapes.

I think it is clearly understood by people in the know, particularly the member for Brock, that the larger demand for domestic wines is because of the careful blending that takes place of the domestic white labrusca grapes with the imported vinifera grape from California.

The member for Welland-Thorold should understand there is this necessity for continued blending. Understanding this, he should not be taking the Minister of Agriculture and Food to task for allowing importation of grapes because I think in time we will attain self-sufficiency.

I would point out that the sunset provision has been contained in the legislation over the years because it was hoped the advances being made by the industry might permit us, over two-year stages, eventually to arrive at the objective of complete self-sufficiency. Of course, it is important that a further two-year extension be granted at this time because there is still progress to be made in this regard.

I would point out that the importing of grapes does assist the Ontario wine producers as well as growers, and that has to be clearly stated on the record. It may seem to be an inconsistency, but I can assure the members it is not. While the blending provides an improved flavour profile, in so doing it provides a better market acceptability. We have to recognize the facts of life, and the people who are the first and foremost to recognize this fact of life are the wine council and the grape growers themselves. They are the people who have asked for this legislation. That being known, it is therefore important that all of us be in support of what is being asked for by the grape growers and the wine council.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to comment on the observations made by the member for Welland-Thorold who, while supportive, was at the same time somewhat critical with regard to the pricing system that has been established in Ontario. I think the historical situation that has existed since the first legislation was introduced in 1976 does bear repeating and elaboration for just a moment or two.

Until 1983 there was a provision whereby, with the consent of the Ontario grape-growing industry, there be a handling charge imposed on wines.

Mr. McClellan: What would you do if we were opposing? Would you be filibustering if we were opposing?

Mr. Williams: That is right. The member would be in real trouble if he were in opposition.

Mr. McClellan: This is a filibuster. You do not want this bill to pass.

Mr. Williams: I am learning from the pros over there. Prior to October 1981, the markups on wines, were as follows -- and I think it is important to know this: Ontario table wines were marked up 58 per cent, Canadian wines 105 per cent and imported wines 123 per cent.

One might be critical of what transpired in 1981. It was decided in the budget of 1981 that the markups would be reduced and the handling charge of 65 cents per bottle on imported wines, which I referred to, would be imposed. This has been referred to by my colleagues this afternoon, including the member for Prescott-Russell, who is leaving the chamber at the moment. We were running into difficulties with the GATT arrangement. This government and the industry were put under extreme pressure by the United States, which felt we were being discriminatory in our practices.

Accordingly, to enjoy the reciprocal arrangements that have historically prevailed between the United States and Canada on the importing of spirits, it was decided, after review by an Ontario government-industry task force in 1982, that the handling charge of 65 cents should be dropped.

I stress that at that time this was discussed with the industry, both with the Wine Council of Ontario and the grape growers. Options were reviewed, including a so-called floor price or merchandising fee which would apply to all wines, or, as a third option, a subsidy program that would be designed to assist the Ontario industry specifically. I want to stress that it was the wineries and grape growers that proposed the floor-price approach be implemented, so the nondiscriminatory reference price, as I like to refer to it, was implemented with the support of the industry. The other options were discarded at that time.

I would be the first to admit the introduction of the nondiscriminatory reference price caused some fluctuations. Some of the domestic wines did go up in price, but a large percentage was reduced in price.

Mr. McClellan: Are you still talking? What are you trying to persuade us to do? Change our minds?

Mr. Williams: I did not hear that gratuitous remark by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).

Mr. McClellan: Why is he holding up passage of the bill?

Mr. Williams: I am approaching the end of my remarks if the members will bear with me for a few moments more.

It is important to give an overview of the situation, because I share with the members who have spoken before me this afternoon the concerns and problems that still exist in the industry. The marketing methods and the sale of wines domestically have been developed by working with the wine council and the Ontario grape growers. It is through them and on their behalf that we bring forward this legislation.

4:50 p.m.

I mentioned earlier the number of jobs in jeopardy, as far as the producers are concerned, is approximately 1,350. As far as the grape growers are concerned, the figure I had in mind, which is the case today, was 16,000 jobs at risk amongst the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula alone. We are talking about a significant number of people who are gainfully employed in that industry. I think we have all shared in putting the importance of the industry on the record today.

I would point out that further submissions have been made by the wine council in recent months because of declining sales. With regard to domestic wines, it is apparent there has been a slippage of about six per cent, while the overall sale of wines in Ontario has increased by five to six per cent. I acknowledge that fact. We recognize that is a problem.

The member for Welland-Thorold, who has momentarily left the chamber, was seeking the statistics for March. It would appear there was a very serious decline of 22.5 per cent. Those are the most current figures available to us. We do not intend to hide those figures because they are factual and we understand they go to the very heart of the problem before us.

By the same token, with the efforts of the wine council and the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board in sharing further possible options with the government and most recently with the Treasurer to try to assist the industry, I am confident our wine industry will prosper not only in the short term but in the long term. It will be restored to the healthy industry it was in recent times.

In closing, I simply state this government is committed to and supportive of the wine industry in this province without qualification. The legislation we have before us today is clear evidence of that commitment and support. We will continue to give that support to a very important industry of this province. I am delighted that members of the opposition parties, along with the member for Brock, will heartily endorse the enactment of this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

EXTRA-PROVINCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT

Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 5, An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have an opening statement with regard to the bill.

I am introducing for second reading the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act. This act is intended to update legislation that has remained essentially unchanged for 84 years. At the same time, it will remove some technical deficiencies in the current legislation and allow us to treat all Canadian corporations equally.

During the second reading of the Extra- Provincial Corporations Act last October, some members expressed concerns about a corporation's power in land transactions. Those concerns have been addressed by eliminating a section in the original bill that would have removed the ultra vires defence by an extra-provincial corporation. Instead, a clause similar to section 346 of the existing Corporations Act gives all extraprovincial corporations the power to acquire, hold and convey land or an interest therein in Ontario for their use, occupation or the carrying on of their business.

The main feature of the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act is the removal of special licence requirements for Canadian companies incorporated outside Ontario. At present companies incorporated by Quebec by special mutual agreement and by the federal government by virtue of the Constitution do not need an extraprovincial licence to do business in Ontario.

However, companies incorporated by the other eight provinces must be licensed. The Extra-Provincial Corporations Act will remove that discrepancy. Foreign corporations will still need an extraprovincial licence to operate here.

As I have emphasized before, this bill will eliminate unnecessary paperwork without lessening our control over corporations that operate here.

I will now turn to some specific provisions in this bill to show how it differs from the existing Corporations Act.

First, I should point out the definition of business has been expanded to include nonprofit activity. For the first time, foreign nonprofit corporations will need a licence to carry on activities in Ontario.

The bill also contains a clear definition of what constitutes carrying on business as opposed to the somewhat ambiguous definition in the Corporations Act. Ownership of land and provision of services are now recognized as business activities.

The new legislation will streamline some procedures. For example, there will be three classes of corporations -- federal, provincial and foreign -- as opposed to the 11 classes now set out in the Corporations Act.

Also, the power of deciding whether a company can operate in Ontario will be transferred from the minister to a director appointed to oversee the act. Along with this transfer of power, new elements of procedural fairness are added in the bill. For example, a right of appeal to the Divisional Court will exist when a licence is refused or cancelled or when a corporate name is found to be objectionable. In addition, sufficient cause for cancellation of a licence or for prohibiting a provincial corporation from operating in Ontario is now clearly defined in the proposed act.

Also clearly defined for the first time are rules on the use of a name by provincial or foreign corporations. Those guidelines will prohibit the use names that may, for instance, deceive the public. Under the current legislation there are no explicit rules on the continued appointment of a company's agent for service in Ontario. This deficiency will be rectified by requiring foreign corporations to maintain an agent for service in Ontario at all times.

These are the main features of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, Bill 5 has returned to us after a discussion in the Legislature when it was Bill 103. As I recall, that discussion took place on November 22, 1983.

It is necessary to set out briefly an example of the situation which causes this bill to be back before the House. This is with respect to the property known as Plaza 100, an apartment building at 100 Wellesley St. East in Toronto.

5 p.m.

In 1982 the building was sold by Cadillac Fairwiew Corp. to 481076 Ontario Inc. That numbered company was formed on May 25, 1981, by a law firm. The sole director on that date was Jack Tse, who was also the sole director of Fairwin Investments Ltd. On August 13, 1981, Laurence Caroe became vice-president of that company.

On August 3, 1982, that numbered company assigned its purchaser's interest in the agreement to purchase and sale of this building at 100 Wellesley St. East to a company called Deerhurst Investment Ltd. Deerhurst investment Ltd. happens to be a Liberian corporation and its signing officer was Lucy Y. S. Gomersall of Hong Kong. Deerhurst is actually a subsidiary and is wholly owned by another company called Cadogan Investment Ltd. Again Mr. Caroe signed for the Ontario numbered company.

On October 1, 1982, the deal between Deerhurst and Cadillac-Fairview closed, and Mr. Caroe acted for Deerhurst, while the law firm of Goodman and Goodman acted for Cadillac Fairview. Deerhurst then proceeds to make Fairwin the property manager, and members might note that the president of Fairwin, Mr. Jack Tse, is the nephew-in-law of the president of Deerhurst, Lucy Gomersall. On August 29, 1983, Deerhurst signed a contract with SPAR Property Consultants Ltd. authorizing that company to represent Deerhurst before the Residential Tenancy Commission.

So we have a circumstance where applications are now being made for changes in the rental prospects that the tenants would have to face in that building. Under the present law, which is part VIII of the Corporations Act, both Deerhurst and Fairwin are in breach of section 348, Deerhurst because it is acting on behalf of Cadogan, its parent corporation, a Liberian corporation without an extraprovincial licence, and Fairwin because it is acting on behalf of Deerhurst, another Liberian corporation without an extraprovincial licence.

Rather than prosecute these companies, whose lack of licence has caused delay and turmoil in their rent review application, the ministry is attempting to exonerate them quietly through bringing Bill 5 before us this afternoon.

In the debate on Bill 103 last November, I raised a number of issues, which I will not repeat in detail here other than to remind members that three of the areas I had referred to have been corrected and improved.

First, the government has revised the legislation before reintroducing it in the present form of Bill 5, which is before us this afternoon. Second, I agree that section 21 of the old bill certainly has been improved, although some problems still remain. Third, clause 24(m) of Bill 103, which is now clause 25(m) of Bill 5, has been corrected following the suggestions I had made, and the same approach applies to section 15.

But there are four outstanding areas of concern I would like to share with the parliamentary assistant with the prospect that the questions I raise may well be answered. If they are not answered, I would hope we would have the opportunity of having this bill sent to the standing committee on administration of justice for review and submissions, particularly from the tenants' groups involved in this particular building and perhaps from others. However, that being said, it may be the House will prefer to deal with the bill in committee here and that the answers may well be forthcoming from the parliamentary assistant or the minister.

First, I would direct members' attention to subsection 20(1) of the bill that is before us. The bill really waters down the strength of the penalty provisions by providing that a person can be found guilty of contravening the act or its regulations or a condition of a licence and other areas only if the person commits such an act without reasonable cause. The existing penalty provisions under part VIII of the Corporations Act do not contain that phrase "without reasonable cause." Rather, it is somewhat more straightforward and clear cut. The end result is that unless an extraprovincial corporation has a licence and unless that licence is in force, then the extraprovincial corporation or its agent is guilty of an offence in accordance with section 348.

First, one of the recommendations I think should be before the House as we discuss this bill in principle is whether the words "without reasonable cause" should be deleted. Under subsection 20(2) --

Mr. Williams: Reasonable cause in what section?

Mr. Breithaupt: That is in subsection 20(1).

In subsection 20(2), the directors of an extraprovincial corporation can be convicted of an offence on only two grounds. First, if the corporation is guilty of that offence; and second if the directors "authorized, permitted or acquiesced" to the offence.

I realize the minister's rationale in adding these two provisos to the legislation may well be able to be explained by the parliamentary assistant. However, these two provisos which serve as hurdles would have to be overcome before an agent could be convicted under the proposed act. The wording of this section creates a potential loophole in that it provides that an agent could not be charged until and unless the extraprovincial corporation had been convicted.

By not conducting its own business affairs in Ontario, such a corporation could not be found guilty under this subsection and as a consequence the agent would also be immune. Even if the corporation was found guilty, the agent would have to be knowingly guilty of the same offence before a conviction of the agent can be obtained.

The ministry is well aware that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to charge and convict an extraprovincial corporation of an offence. Therefore, it is essential that the justice system be designed in such a way as to allow for the swift charging and conviction of any agent representing an extraprovincial corporation that is unlicensed.

I draw to the attention of the parliamentary assistant section 339 of the existing legislation. It clearly states, "No person, as the representative or agent of or acting in any other capacity for any such extraprovincial corporation, shall carry on any of its business in Ontario unless it has received such licence."

I do not know why we have the water somewhat muddied with subsection 20(2). Clearly that kind of approach is unnecessary. Since the penalty provisions in that section can be interpreted to include the agent, there is no need to create confusion by placing more restrictive conditions on agent convictions through subsection 20(2). Accordingly, I think the references to agents should be removed from this subsection. I would suggest the ministry should consider deleting the words "and every person acting as its representative in Ontario" from that subsection.

In the third area, I would refer the members to subsection 21(1). This subsection deals with one's ability to maintain an action before the courts. With respect to the Plaza 100 situation, the subsection enables Deerhurst and its agents to comply with the new act and to be absolved from any infractions of our existing law. If this subsection is not deleted, Deerhurst and its agents could not be prosecuted for breaching the former Corporations Act. So this section should be amended by adding after the word "act" in subsection 21(1) the words, "or by part VIII of the Corporations Act or a predecessor thereof."

5:10 p.m.

The fourth area of concern deals with section 22. The concerns may well be clarified in this area by having the minister or the parliamentary assistant give us the appropriate legal interpretation of the section.

The present law gives licensed extraprovincial corporations the power "to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, to hold, to mortgage, to sell, to alienate and to convey any land or interest therein in Ontario." The proposed section gives licensed extraprovincial corporations the power "to acquire, hold and convey any land or interest therein in Ontario." Why have the actions of purchasing, leasing, mortgaging, selling, and alienating been removed from this list? Are they implicit in the language that has been retained and would this be a straightforward matter, or would it be subject to some judicial interpretation?

It is worth noting that Deerhurst Investment Ltd. has mortgaged land without a licence. For example, there is the Plaza 100 site. Is this section designed to get that company off the hook, as it were?

I suggest those are four particular themes within this bill that will have to be addressed by the parliamentary assistant. I look forward to hearing from him, either at this time or when the bill is in committee.

One area that has been completely overlooked in this bill is the status of prosecutions in progress. It is our position that a section should be added to ensure that, notwithstanding the repeal of part VIII of the Corporations Act, any prosecution under that act can still proceed where the circumstances are known and where the opportunity is there.

On December 20, 1983, a letter was sent to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on behalf of Plaza 100 tenants. It asked that charges be laid against Fairwin and against its president and sole director. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read the relevant parts of this letter into the debate this afternoon because the reply from the ministry also has to be considered as we debate this bill.

This letter, delivered by hand, was from Mr. Claude Latrémouille of Suite 2712, 100 Wellesley St. East. He is the secretary of that tenants' association.

Mr. Conway: Some pretty important people live at 100 Wellesley St. East.

Mr. Breithaupt: He wrote the letter to Mr. Thomas G. Johnson at the investigation and enforcement branch, business practices division, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It is entitled: "Charges Under the Provincial Offences Act against Fairwin Investments Ltd. and Mr. Jack Tse, president, secretary and sole director of Fairwin Investments Ltd.

"Dear Sir: I hereby ask you to cause two separate charges to be laid under the Provincial Offences Act against" -- the two parties I have just mentioned -- "for the following reasons.

"Since October 1, 1982, and every day thereafter, they knowingly and unlawfully did contravene section 339 of the Corporations Act by becoming a representative or agent of or acting in any other capacity for Deerhurst Investment Ltd., a corporation within class 11 mentioned in section 337 of the Corporations Act, incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Liberia and without a licence issued to it under part VIII of the Corporations Act, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 348 of the Corporations Act, RSO 1980, chapter 95 as amended.

"Most of the evidence related to these charges has been filed with the Residential Tenancy Commission, file number 126-479-TO. I refer to:

"1. An agency authorization signed by Mr. Jack Tse dated November 7, 1983, and shown to me for the first time on December 12, 1983.

"2. A contract between Deerhurst Investment Ltd. and Fairwin Investments Ltd. dated October I, 1982, a copy of which was received by the Residential Tenancy Commission on November 7, 1983. It is pursuant to that contract that Fairwin carries on most, if not all, of Deerhurst's business in Ontario, i.e., the management of Plaza 100, a residential complex where I reside.

"3. A contract between Deerhurst Investment Ltd. and SPAR Property Consultants Ltd. dated August 29, 1983, signed by Mr. Jack Tse for Deerhurst and filed with the Residential Tenancy Commission on October 24, 1983.

"Your ministry should provide you with the evidence that Deerhurst Investment Ltd. has never been issued a licence under part VIII of the Corporations Act; that Fairwin Investments Ltd. is an Ontario corporation (number 488635), incorporated on August 13, 1981; that its president, secretary and sole director is Mr. Jack Tse, and that its head office is at 31 Lascelles Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M5P 2C8.

"Mr. Jack Tse's ordinary place of business (he is a dentist), is at Suite 201, 3040 Palstan Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, 14Y 2Z6, which is the address where he should be served the summons to be issued pursuant to the information to be laid.

"As to the evidence that Deerhurst Investment Ltd. is a corporation from the Republic of Liberia, the corporate seal used by Deerhurst in instrument number CT552762 at the land registry office for the city of Toronto reads as follows: 'Deerhurst Investment Ltd -- Republic of Liberia -- corporate seal.' An excerpt from this instrument showing the seal is also on file with the Residential Tenancy Commission. The commissioner assigned to the case is Mr. Kirpal Sagoo.

"Should charges not be laid before December 31, 1983, I shall return before a justice of the peace to lay the information myself. Sincerely yours, Mr. Claude Latrémouille."

That letter was delivered by hand, as I have said, to the ministry. The basis for the charges which were suggested is, of course, that Fairwin has acted as agent for Deerhurst and Deerhurst is an extraprovincial corporation without a licence.

The province has not laid charges. The ministry has not decided to go ahead in this matter; instead, we see Bill 5 reintroduced, in effect, in this House.

The apparent decision of the ministry to not lay charges against Fairwin is seemingly based on the ministry contention that Deerhurst itself is not carrying on business in Ontario. This is completely irrelevant to the issue. The tenants are not interested in charging Deerhurst. Thus, the only relevant question is whether Fairwin is carrying on Deerhurst's business in Ontario. The present legislation does not require that an extraprovincial corporation be carrying on business here before an agent can be convicted.

The minister must be asked to address this matter, in particular because we have evidence I can place before you in the form of a notice sent to the tenants of Plaza 100 on March 14, 1984. It refers to two matters, one of some plumbing inspection and the second of repairs to the garage door. It ends, "Thank you for your patience and understanding. Fairwin Investments Ltd., Managers for Deerhurst Investment Ltd."

Fairwin appears to think it is, in fact, acting in a manner which would show that agency is the case.

A reply was received from the ministry. It was signed by Mrs. Helen A. Vanner, the acting deputy minister. It went back to our friend the secretary of the tenants' association on December 28, 1983, with a copy to the Honourable Susan Fish, MPP, the member for St. George, in whose constituency this building is. The response reads:

"Re Plaza 100:

"The minister has asked me to thank you on his behalf for your recent correspondence requesting that Bill 103, the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act 1983, be amended. Many tenants in your building have written about this matter. Unfortunately, the Legislature adjourned before the bill was passed into law and it will be necessary to reintroduce it in the spring."

I might add parenthetically to that first paragraph that given the flaws in Bill 103, it is hardly unfortunate it was not passed. Mrs. Vanner goes on to refer to certain provisions in part VIII of the Corporations Act which would be changed. She continues as follows:

"Although not passed, the bill was debated in the Legislature on the evening of November 22 last. During the debate, your building and Deerhurst Investment Ltd. were mentioned. Two concerns in particular were raised. The first centred around the proposition that Deerhurst Investment's ownership of Plaza 100 might be challenged on the basis of the wording contained in section 346 of the Corporations Act. Concern was expressed that the bill would not permit such a challenge. The bill was not retroactive. This meant that any rights, obligations or disabilities which affect you or Deerhurst Investment Ltd. at this time would not have been affected had the proposed act become law."

Then Mrs. Vanner goes on to quote subsection 15(1).

Even though the bill is not retroactive, it does have a retroactive consequence. The consequence, of course, is referred to later in this letter when Mrs. Vanner writes: "The subsection was designed to protect residents of Ontario who have dealings with foreign corporations by providing that those foreign corporations cannot walk away from a deal merely because they do not have a licence to carry on business here."

I would reply to that quotation by commenting that is exactly what the subsection was designed not to do. If that was true, why did the government remove that subsection in the new version, Bill 5, which is before us today?

5:20 p.m.

Mrs. Vanner goes on: "The second concern was with respect to the proposed penalty provisions in the bill. It was suggested that an agent in Ontario who acted for an unlicensed foreign corporation could be immune from prosecution if the foreign corporation itself were not first convicted of an offence. This is not the case.

"An agent who acts for an unlicensed corporation can be prosecuted directly. In addition, under the proposed act where a foreign corporation was convicted of an offence, its representative can also be guilty of an offence for mere acquiescence in the actions of the foreign corporation, even where that representative might not otherwise have been guilty. Thus, the bill contains stronger penalty provisions than those currently in force."

That paragraph is partly true and partly false. Certainly in my understanding, the first part of the concern with respect to immunity from prosecution is the case under subsection 20(2). The second area referred to in that paragraph is true with respect to mere acquiescence, but it seems to be irrelevant with respect to the building known as Plaza 100.

Mrs. Vanner then goes on to complete her letter by saying:

"Please be assured that the bill will not be reintroduced without careful consideration of views which you and other tenants have expressed to the minister. In view of this, the minister does not feel that a meeting with your association is needed at this time.

"If your landlord wants to increase your rent by more than six per cent, it will have to abide by the provisions and procedures set out in the Residential Tenancies Act and, in addition, will be subject the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, recently amended to extend to December 31, 1984.

"Thank you for taking the trouble to write to the minister on this very important matter."

I am surprised that careful consideration of the views of these tenants could be readily obtained without bothering to meet with them. Certainly the tenants felt it was necessary to meet with the minister, even though the minister apparently was not able to meet with them.

The end result is that the tenants of the building known as Plaza 100 are most concerned about the bill that is before us today because, in their view, it will not address the problems that have arisen concerning the matter of extraprovincial licence and the question as to whether an agency did occur.

As I have said, the apparent decision of the ministry not to lay charges against Fairwin Investments Ltd. was seemingly based on the ministry's contention that Deerhurst itself is not carrying on business in Ontario. It is with that contention that I respectfully disagree. I believe the only relevant question is whether Fairwin is carrying on Deerhurst's business in Ontario, and in my view that is the case.

We have seen a number of changes in this bill. The comments made by the parliamentary assistant in his statement do set out some of the changes which I had suggested in Bill 103 as it was debated before us. There are certain other areas I have referred to where the bill is deficient.

I look forward to having those questions and suggestions resolved at the committee stage, whether it be outside the House or in the committee of the whole House. It is only on the understanding that those questions will be answered that we would be able to allow the bill to proceed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, when we debated the predecessor of this bill, which of course was not passed on November 22, 1983, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and I raised a number of concerns at that time. The bill that is now before us, Bill 5, in some way addresses those concerns.

This is the kind of bill that always makes one wonder to what extent one should be taking up the time of the House doing the work the ministry should have done before it introduced the bill. Let me give just one example. We find the parliamentary assistant to the minister indicating to the House that one of the big steps forward this bill accomplishes is to reduce the number of classes of extraprovincial corporations from 11 to three, and that makes very good sense.

The bill sets out very carefully what the three classes are by stating categorically that extraprovincial corporations shall be classified into the following classes: class 1, class 2, class 3. But the ministry can never let go. Section 25 of the bill, which is the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make "regulations respecting any matter he considers necessary," includes those magical words "without limiting the generality of the foregoing, regulations…prescribing classes of extraprovincial corporations and exempting any class of extra-provincial corporation from all or any part of the provisions of this act upon such terms and conditions, if any, as may be prescribed."

So what the ministry has accomplished on the one hand, it has provided assurance to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation to take a backward step and to produce additional classes and to subdivide classes. I really question whether bills that have been floating around in the ministry for consideration for such a length of time should come before the assembly with that kind of inherent contradiction in the bill.

I am pleased that there was a minor gesture towards the question with respect to the holding of land by extraprovincial corporations and in particular that it was not limited only to non-Canadian extraprovincial corporations but includes all classes as being classes of corporations that are limited. If my reading of the clause is correct, I believe that in section 22, which was not in the previous bill, there are words of limitation expressed in the positive sense that such corporations may hold lands and interest in land etc. "necessary for its actual use and occupation or for carrying on its undertaking."

I take that to be a clear indication that such corporations are not entitled to hold land in Ontario which does not meet the test that it is "necessary for its actual use and occupation or for carrying on its undertaking." Needless to say, nowhere is there any obligation on any extra-provincial corporation to satisfy the ministry that the land it owns is subject to those limitations.

One would have thought it would have also been included, when it was inserted in this bill, under the items with respect to sufficient cause which gives the ministry power to pick up or cancel the licence. That is not so.

It seems to me this kind of bill should not be dropped into the assembly after the discussions that have been going on in the corporate world for a long time without a great deal of specific care and attention directed towards the phraseology that is used.

From an elementary corporate point of view, it is quite simple that any non-Canadian corporation can avoid the necessity of having a licence in Ontario by the simple expedient of incorporating a company in any other jurisdiction in Canada. That company does not need to have a licence to carry on its business.

The corporate gymnastics that lawyers and accountants play in the field of corporate law are not a matter of major concern to us here in the assembly. I say to the parliamentary assistant that perhaps at some time these points, and the points my colleague the member for Kitchener has raised, will be addressed in a businesslike, direct and straightforward way by the government.

5:30 p.m.

I want to make one comment with respect to the land question. I do not believe this is the appropriate place to raise the question of monitoring the ownership of land by corporations in Ontario, foreign or otherwise. But I again ask the minister whether he will take the trouble to read in detail the statement made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission at the time it was dealing with the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, which was the act we repealed, and that was that there was a very real question of policy with respect to the capacity of the government, in the day of the kind of information retrieval systems we have, to set up a process by which the ownership of land by corporations in this province -- in this instance I am speaking particularly of foreign corporations -- should be monitored under a system of monitoring so that we know who owns the land so far as corporations are concerned.

Of course, I have other views with respect to the question of the ownership of land by persons who are not nationals of Canada, persons who are not Canadian citizens; and the whole question of the ownership of agricultural land is another aspect of the same question.

I spoke about some of those concerns on November 22, 1983; I have spoken about them on a number of other occasions. Many of my colleagues, those who sat on the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism years ago, members of all parties, had things to say about this question of the maintenance in Ontario of control over the ownership of land through an adequate monitoring system. My friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who was a member of that committee some years ago, introduced for first reading on March 27, 1984, Bill 16, An Act respecting a Register of Ontario Land Information.

I am saying that behind this nitty-gritty piece of corporate legal legislation, legerdemain or whatever one wants to call it there lies a profound policy question that the government will not address. I suggest to the minister and to his colleagues in the cabinet that when they have nothing else to do some day they should sit down and read the law reform commission report on the question, which focuses on the government the responsibility of developing the kind of policy that would ensure a sense of identity of Canadians with respect to the ownership of their land.

If there is any index that is important in a case of national identity next to language, culture and other matters, it is the question of who owns the land upon which we walk and move and live and have our being. Those are important questions, and the longer we delay the more difficult it will be to get the kind of control over this question that a proper monitoring system would achieve.

In the time I have sat in the House, apart from the deliberations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, I have never had any sense that either of the other two parties, the government party or the Liberal Party, had any real commitment to that question.

I must except from that, of course, my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), who time and again has spoken on the question with respect to the ownership of agricultural land by persons who are not Canadians, and I think this question must be addressed by government as a policy.

It is one of those matters on which I feel deeply and could speak at length, but I do not intend to; I have addressed it on a number of other occasions. However, I do not want anyone to think for one moment that the introduction of section 22 into this bill is in any way an answer to the major policy question that underlies the question of the ownership of land in the province.

I am pleased to hear from the parliamentary assistant that he intends to amend the subsequent bill, Bill 6, the Corporations Information Amendment Act, for the purpose of ensuring that there will be an agent for service in Ontario as we abolish the requirement that there be a licensing process.

Quite properly, I have spoken with my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who has now come into the House. Each of us has spoken to the parliamentary assistant, and I had an opportunity to speak to the minister about this question. I was glad to see they were receptive to introducing the amendment -- and I am not particularly concerned about who introduces the amendment -- which will provide that extraprovincial corporations must have an agent for service in the province.

I might as well make the point here so that people will understand the reasons for my concerns with respect to that question. A former constituent of mine, living outside the Riverdale area at present, was faced with this problem and came to see me about it. I want to put it on the record so that nobody misunderstands the omission in the bill which is going to be rectified by providing an obligation, regardless of whether it has to have a licence, for an agent for service in the province.

Mr. Harold Tarala came to see me at my constituency office about a year ago about his situation. He turned up one day at the Eaton Centre to find that the Swensen's Ice Cream Co. operation did not exist any more. My friend Mr. Tarala had a contract for the janitorial work in connection with cleaning the premises occupied by whoever it was who was selling Swensen's ice cream.

A few days after he came to see me, I found out there was no way I could find anybody in Ontario to deal with the matter, so I wrote to:

"Mr. Robert R. Munro, President, Swensen's Ice Cream Co. of Canada Ltd., 8260 Manitoba Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

"Dear Mr. Munro:

"I am writing to you about a constituent of mine, Mr. Harold Tarala, who is carrying on a small cleaning business as a sole proprietor under the name H. T. Handyman Co. He had a contract with your company for the cleaning of your store in the Toronto Eaton Centre.

"As I understand it, the store in the Eaton Centre changed hands abruptly on January 5, 1983, and my constituent was left with his contract terminated and an amount of $835 owing to him as follows," and I set out the particulars of the $835.

"Mr. Tarala has had no success whatsoever in obtaining payment of this amount, and I would appreciate your co-operation in arranging for him to receive prompt payment.

"May I hear from you at your earliest convenience."

I assumed I would hear. Of course, I did not hear. Later on, when no reply had been forthcoming, I sent him a registered receipt acknowledgement letter:

"Dear Mr. Munro:

"It is now some four months since I wrote to you regarding a constituent of mine, Mr. Harold Tarala, who was left with his contract terminated when your store in the Eaton Centre in Toronto changed hands.

"For your information, I enclose a copy of my letter to you of March 14 and would very much appreciate receiving a prompt reply from you regarding the situation."

Needless to say, I have had no response. This sort of modernization of corporate law which says, in a great expanding sense, that Canadian corporations anywhere in Canada do not have to have a licence to operate a business here -- and there is no provision in the bills as they now stand for an agent for service -- does a disservice to people in a situation such as Mr. Harold Tarala is in.

5:40 p.m.

It does not take a lawyer to say that to collect $835 by suing Swensen's Ice Cream Co. in Vancouver is beyond the capacity of the legal system to deal with. Not only would you have to pay the $835 in fees if you were able to collect it, but also you would not be able to find a lawyer prepared to process that kind of claim. The place to process that kind of claim is in Toronto, in the small claims court or in the provincial court, civil jurisdiction.

I wanted to put on the record that there is not some theoretical problem involved. There are many people placed in that position. We have to be certain we maintain a very clear register in the office of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations so that every corporation, other than an Ontario corporation, which is required by law to have its head office here must have a named agent with a proper address and a proper method of reaching that person in order that writs and claims can be served and this kind of question resolved.

I thought it was appropriate to make that point on this particular bill. I have no other comments. I do not think the bill deserves any particular further consideration by this House. There may be matters that can be equally well dealt with under the succeeding bill.

Unless my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre or someone else wishes the bill to go to committee of the whole House, I see no particular need for it to do so. Our position is that we will not oppose the bill. Let us get it over with. Let us avoid Parkinson's law, filling up the available space of the time of the business of the House because there is no other worthwhile legislation for us to deal with.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am loath to speak after that last comment of my colleague.

I would basically like to endorse the proposals put forward by my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), particularly with respect to providing a means by which persons or corporations resident in this province can gain access to extraprovincial corporations.

When I raised this matter with the parliamentary assistant, it was in relation to proposed amendments I will put forward when we get to Bill 6. The amendments would cover the case my friend the member for Riverdale has raised. The parliamentary assistant suggested I read sections in Bill 5. The sections in Bill 5 provide there be an agent for service or the equivalent for an extraprovincial corporation that is in class 2 or class 3. That is a corporation that is not only incorporated outside of Ontario but also outside of Canada.

However, that does not cover extraprovincial corporations where we extend the courtesy of recognizing a provincial incorporation from another province or from one of the territories. It seems to me that situation has to be recognized or we may get into the situation where people will write to Prince Edward Island, for example, or perhaps some other province that is prepared to be overly co-operative in giving people incorporation. They will thereby be allowed to create corporate selves with permission to operate in this province with a minimum of regulation. They will be able to do a midnight flit, to disappear, when it suits their needs. They can then get themselves out from under in terms of potential legal action taken by people in this province.

It is relatively well established -- perhaps not in the minds of Ayn Rand or some of the right-wing ideologues who advise the Conservative Party -- that incorporation is not just a matter of right. The access to limited liability that comes with incorporation is something that in the history of economic organizations has been found useful because it does encourage people to get into enterprises they would not be prepared to undertake if all their wealth and substance were to be put at risk, no matter what enterprise they happened to be involved in.

In return for limited liability, there are certain obligations to the public, which it seems to me are reasonable for any jurisdiction such as Ontario to accept. All my friend the member for Riverdale was suggesting in a very modest way was that the very least obligation a company should be prepared to accept in return for the right to do business in this province is that, should matters unfortunately come to the position where some legal action needs to be taken because they cannot be resolved in a private manner, at least one should be able to have access to that company.

Certainly, for matters that would enter into the small claims court, for matters of a few thousand dollars, a person does not really have such access. With airfare and the other costs of access -- let us say to the Yukon, Prince Edward Island or Vancouver -- effectively there is no reasonable access to legal action for debts of under $5,000 or $10,000 in other parts of the country.

I very much hope the parliamentary assistant would accept the proposals being put forward by the member for Riverdale and myself. As I have indicated to him, while we did suggest a form of words, we would certainly be open to any alternative formulation that had been put forward by the ministry's draft people.

If the parliamentary assistant wants to announce that has been the case and sends it across for us to have a look at, we are certainly prepared to be co-operative. It is not the specific words we are wedded to; it is the concept we are seeking to have included in this matched pair of bills, Bills 5 and 6. As the member for Riverdale said, however, we can make the necessary amendments on Bill 6 and will do so.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this legislation.

I was a member who sat on the select committee a number of years ago as we tried to do the report involving land. We requested information on all the corporations involved in land in and around Toronto to try to assess why land was escalating so rapidly, who owned it, for what purpose it was being acquired and so on.

The parliamentary assistant might check with some of his colleagues, several of them who are now in the cabinet, about the tremendous frustration the committee experienced as we tried to get a handle on who owned the land. It was interesting that all the corporations, from Wimpey down, told us they did not know who owned the land. No one had any idea who owned the land between here and Oshawa going east or between here and Hamilton going west. No one had any idea whether or not they were just sitting on it until the value of land escalated by the expansion of Toronto. No one could tell us a thing. For three full days the committee tried to find out. We questioned the people involved in the construction industry in this province and tried to get a handle on it.

The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) continually worries about the purchase of land in agricultural areas. But we were completely frustrated when we tried to get a handle on who in God's name owned what and whether they were Canadian, American or from offshore. We heard all kinds of stories about how huge tracts of land in the Haliburtons were being purchased outright by offshore interests.

They were getting tremendous tax write-offs in their own countries for purchasing land, say outside Germany. They were buying here in Ontario and they were getting a credit in the form of a tax write-off for that.

The select committee tried for three days, but after almost absolute frustration we knew we were not going to get an answer to any of the questions we were raising about foreign ownership of land and what was going to transpire in this regard.

Anyone may go back and look at the select committee report. It runs for maybe 60 or 80 pages and expresses concern about people selling their land. For example, if one wants to go down to Lake Erie, he will find every chunk of land is owned by someone offshore. We found one cannot even get down to the shoreline in many parts along the lake. The report has a whole series of recommendations to government as to what it should be doing to get a handle on what is going on.

5:50 p.m.

Out of frustration a couple of years ago I moved a private member's bill which called for a land registry. The land registry very simply is to try to establish who is buying what. They would have to set out the person's interest in the land, describe the use of the land, declare whether the person is a nonresident and set out the municipal address and a brief description of the land so we would at least know. It was happening to my friend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who indicated he knew of 23 different farms -- I believe that was the figure he gave me -- all being purchased by one individual.

It has to cause tremendous fright in the agricultural community if someone is buying up that kind of land. One has to try to assess what is going to happen to the individual farmers in those communities and whether the land is going to be turned over to some corporate farm interest that is going to return virtually to the days of 100 years ago of the absentee landlord and somebody operating the farm at a very small profit or maybe even at a wage. The mind boggles, but we do not even have an idea.

I have not received much response to this bill, although I have sent it to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to try to get a response. If the government would take that small step of at least knowing who is buying the land, for what purpose he is purchasing the land and whether he is Canadian or non-Canadian, then we in Canada and in Ontario would have some idea of what is going on out there.

I get tired of the arguments. My friend the member for Middlesex will get up and say that so much agricultural land is going out of production. Then the minister will get up and say, "That is not true." Why do we not find out what is going on? Are we not interested enough in our own country to find out who is buying us out?

If one wants to look at recreational land, it became a real problem in northern Ontario because ultimately the Americans, with more money to spend than Canadians, were getting first shot at recreational land and we were losing out there as we are losing out in agricultural land.

Surely we have a responsibility, if not to ourselves at least to our kids, to protect the land for our future use. That is not to discourage any type of investment or anything at all; it is just to know factually what is going on in this country and in this particular province.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant whether his ministry has had an opportunity to review this piece of private member's legislation. Like my colleague, I could not care less who would introduce an amendment that might resolve this dilemma for us of trying to establish who has the land. So be it if the government does it, as long as it achieves the goal we want. What is in there now is really not enough. If one looks at section 22, there certainly is not enough in that section to warn us of what is happening.

I am glad to see my friend the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) come in because he sat on that select committee and helped to make the recommendations on land. The frustrations we experienced in trying to find out who owned what and for what purpose became so frustrating; we could not get a handle on what was going on. Surely it is time for the government of Ontario in its wisdom, if it has any, to put in an amendment that does not do just what this says but goes a lot further in finding out once and for all who is purchasing the land and for what reason.

They might look at this legislation and they might adopt some of the items in it, and protect the future generations who will ultimately own this country. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to respond to that when he makes his remarks.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly appreciated the positive input from the members of the official opposition and the third party this afternoon with regard to Bill 5. To put in perspective what we are talking about, I should point out exactly what this legislation is about. As I indicated in my opening statement, we are trying to modernize and bring up to date legislation that has been essentially sitting on the books in Ontario for the past 84 years. In its present form, under part VIII of the Corporations Act, it is clear to us from our day-to-day operations that the time has come for us to --

Mr. Sargent: Time. Shut him off.

Mr. Williams: I am being harassed by my friend in the back row.

The time has come to modernize and streamline the legislation so that it meets current situations and needs. It is clear this particular legislation is directed towards a very small percentage of the corporations in Ontario, less than one per cent of the 327,000 or so corporations doing business in Ontario.

As I said at the outset and as the members are fully aware, constitutionally the federal corporations are exempt. By agreement with Quebec, those Quebec corporations that do business in Ontario are exempt from having to take out an extraprovincial licence. Thus, we are talking about fewer than 3,000 companies or less than one per cent of the corporations.

While I would like to elaborate on the generalities, more particularly I would like to go to the specific concerns that have been put forward by the member for Kitchener, the member for Riverdale, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Sudbury East. Obviously, time will not permit that to happen. I have responsible and reasoned responses to the concerns raised by the members I have referred to.

Given the fact that it has taken this amount of time to get those concerns before the House, I have been left with insufficient time to address the specifics. I can do nothing now other than to accede to the request from the member for Kitchener that the legislation be referred to committee. He is indicating that one session would be appropriate to deal with some of the specifics, at which time I would be prepared to address the concerns of the members in a full and thorough way.

Because time does not permit me to do otherwise, there is nothing further I can add at this time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before you leave the chair, I might remind the House that tonight at 8 o'clock we will be dealing with Bill 28.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

17 avril 1984