role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 21, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

APPLES FROM HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT BILL

SPEECH BY MORLEY ROSENBERG

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

POLICE ACT AMENDING REGULATION

LAW REFORM ACT REVIEW

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

MORTGAGE COMPANY TAKEOVERS

DEATH AT ALLIED CHEMICAL

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

LAND USE PLANS

REGINA V. VALENTE

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

SUSPENSION OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT LICENCE

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

ASTRA RE-MOR

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

RENT CONTROL

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

PUBLICATION OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

WINDBREAKS PROTECTION ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT

DISRUPTION OF HOUSE

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

INTERIM SUPPLY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

APPLES FROM HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

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

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

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder whether you have had an opportunity since yesterday to speak to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in view of the fact that he is continuing to flout

section 81(

d) of the standing orders in regard to answering written questions on the Order Paper.

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:10 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, later today I shall be introducing a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEECH BY MORLEY ROSENBERG

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

I am sure all members will want to be there.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICE ACT AMENDING REGULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:20 p.m.

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

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

LAW REFORM ACT REVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any proposal for reform of any part of the act will be carefully considered, but there are some areas in particular where I seek comments:

(1) Are the provisions for sharing of nonfamily assets in need of adjustment?

(2) Is the definition of family assets adequate?

(3) Should the legislation be extended to provide for a guaranteed share of property on the death of one of the spouses?

(4) Are the protections of the act for the matrimonial home sufficient?

(5) Are there any problems in the support provisions of the act?

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

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

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

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

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

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

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

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

2:30 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before ending this statement, I would like to return briefly to the subject of the special examination being conducted by I ames Morrison under

section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I will be in a position to report to the Legislature with regard to the Morrison special examination when this House reconvenes in January.

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

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

MORTGAGE COMPANY TAKEOVERS

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

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

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

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

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

section 81 notice of when a takeover is going to transpire.

If that is indeed the case, will the minister not agree that if the appropriate notice has not been filed under the old

section 81, then a share transfer has not been completed and the registrar has an obligation to bring this series of transactions under the new legislation?

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

2:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, please.

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

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

DEATH AT ALLIED CHEMICAL

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

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do have a preliminary report here. The sad

part is that the last time I checked, the body had still not been located. Certainly every measure at our disposal will be used to investigate to the fullest this very tragic accident.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Peterson: The minister should check

section 10 of the act. I think he can request one.

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

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

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:50 p.m.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

interpretation.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 p.m.

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

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

LAND USE PLANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Laughren: I do not.

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

Mr. Laughren: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

REGINA V. VALENTE

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

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

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

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

3:10 p.m.

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

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

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

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:20 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

That governments have played a major

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

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

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

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

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

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

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Fiddle faddle.

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

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

SUSPENSION OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I refer to the suspension of six correctional officers on December 10, pursuant to

section 22, regulation 18, under the Public Service Act, as a result of the incident that occurred at the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre.

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT LICENCE

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

section 12, I believe, of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act to cancel Harkema's dormant licence?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe the

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

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

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

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

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASTRA RE-MOR

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

Interjections.

Some hon. members: He's back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: Be careful.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Be careful?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Be very careful.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be careful.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Rae: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

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

There has been a letter from the Ombudsman under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of privilege?

Mr. Van Horne: A point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:40 p.m.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

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

[Applause]

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

Mr. Foulds: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

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

RENT CONTROL

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

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

"Dear Mr. Davis:

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

"Yours sincerely."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

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

Bill 198,

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

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

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

Motion agreed to.

PUBLICATION OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS

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

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

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

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 212,

An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

The following are the general areas covered by the bill:

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

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

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

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

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 213,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Motion agreed to.

WINDBREAKS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 214,

An Act for the Protection of Windbreaks.

Motion agreed to.

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

3:50 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

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

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when does the minister want to do Bill 199,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act? I am not pressing it; we will do it when the minister says, but I want to know when to be ready.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 191,

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

Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved third reading of Bill 198,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also suggested that we had some anxiety about

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

section 7, on the removal of

section 7.

4 p.m.

Last, I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we moved an amendment that would establish a rent registry under the Landlord and Tenant Act in order to avoid the constitutional problems with the present unproclaimed

section of the Residential Tenancies Act and to provide penalties where there was failure to comply. The minister agrees that the problem of illegal rent increases is a significant one. He knows about it. It has been brought to his attention for years and years yet he wants to study it further, so even that amendment was defeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cooke: You have no respect.

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

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

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

Motion agreed to.

DISRUPTION OF HOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Renwick: That is not what he said.

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

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

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

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Cooke moved second reading of Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

4:10 p.m.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Newman moved, on behalf of Mr. Wrye, second reading of Bill Pr39,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 196,

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

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

section 1.

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

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

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

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

Members will recall that when this bill was first brought before the House -- and it appears in its entirety as

chapter 397 of the revised statutes, 1980 -- the civil division was a project within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

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

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

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

We had the amendments that were presented this morning from the Attorney General, which effectively covered what I had suggested as the themes for this court. At that point two of the areas still had not been entirely dealt with as I had proposed. One was the manner of the reference in the appointment of the judges of the court, which appears in clause 1(

b) of the original act, and the other was the reference with respect to sections 9, 12 and 13 of the Provincial Courts Act as to the duties and obligations of the judges appointed under the act,

chapter 397.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Why do we not do that?

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

4:20 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be amended by deleting

section 2 and substituting the following:

"2(1). Clause 1(

b) of the said act is repealed.

"(2). Clause 1(

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

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

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

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

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

chapter 398.

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

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

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

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

"6(1). Clause 9(1)(

b) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(

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

"(

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

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

I further move that

section 8 of the bill as renumbered be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

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

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

An hon. member: Carried.

Mr. Chairman: That would be nice.

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

Mr. Chairman: Could we have a package of comments? It is a little confusing. There are no amendments to

section 1. Let us get it out of the way.

Section I agreed to.

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

I want to put on the record that I support fully the process that is taking place here today. It is a process that started with the act being passed originally under

chapter 397. It is an interesting process that is taking place in our courts. I see it as a process which will make the courts more effective and efficient.

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

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

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

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

4:30 p.m.

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

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

I have already suggested to the Attorney General that the provincial judges in the criminal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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