Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Before we start the evening festivities here, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 14 of our medical secretaries from the Oshawa Medical Secretaries Association. In fact, two of them up in the gallery are my own; not my own, but from my office. Now I will explain that again. I refuse to tell the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) who the two are.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of introducing to the House the 110 visitors from the Young Voyageurs programme in Thunder Bay. They travelled 17 hours by bus, arriving here this morning -- and we welcome them to Toronto.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock we had made some progress, but we had stood down section 14, subsection (6). I believe the hon. minister may have something to say about that.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr. Chairman, over the dinner hour I have had a chance to reflect on the observations made by the members of the House, and on my own, and have concluded that the thoughts I expressed at that time could be borne out by an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (6) of section 14 be amended to add at the beginning thereof the words; “subject to the provisions of the Wages Act.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We were discussing section 17.

On section 17:

Hon. Mr. Meen: On section 17, Mr. Chairman, a question had been raised as to whether the six-year period -- or some period such as that -- should run from the time when the information first came to the attention of the ministry, or whether it should run only from the time when the cause of action arose, so to speak. It would appear that it is a much safer course of action to pin that down to the dates of, let’s say a false affidavit as spelled out by the date that appears on the document -- precision in other words -- rather than to try to nail down a time when this sort of information might have come to the attention of the ministry or the minister in a large structure, such as a government.

Accordingly, although I recognize that it might be nice to have the longer period of time available that would have been extended had the suggestion been taken up that it run only from the time when it came to the attention of the minister, it would appear to be much firmer -- and I think perhaps fairer for the people involved -- if it starts to run from the date of the commission of the alleged offence. Accordingly, I would not propose that section 17 be changed.

Section 17 agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Chairman: Section 18. Any comments, questions or amendments on any subsection of section 18? The member for High Park. On which subsection?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I would first of all like to take the whole section 18.

Mr. Chairman: Well, it’s not a matter for general comments. We have had those.

Mr. Shulman: You have already had general comments on section 18?

Mr. Chairman: On the bill.

Mr. Shulman: I am not talking about the bill. I am talking about section 18, which says that you can’t tell anybody anything, if I can briefly sum up the section.

Mr. Chairman: That would be 18(1).

Mr. Shulman: There are some problems that come with this section, which I am sure the minister has thought through as he has all the others. How in the world are we going to know how you are exercising your discretion?

In an earlier section of the bill -- I just forget which section it is -- and also in a later section, there are provisions given to the minister whereby he may in his discretion allow people not to pay the tax, delay the time in which it can be paid, and so on. Then we have this section which says nobody is going to know nothing about anything and anybody that tells them anything about anything is going to be in serious trouble. There is no exception for MPPs.

We have already gone through this nonsense of the Liquor Licence Board where they had a catch rider section where nobody has ever to give evidence in court and nobody can tell anybody anything else; and I have had enough of that. This bill is an invitation -- and here we go again -- to all sorts of things.

We have just talked about a section which was an invitation to fraud. This is an invitation to abuse by the ministry. We know we have a wonderful minister now, Mr. Chairman, but how can we be sure he will stay with us forever?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Or that he might remain wonderful forever.

Mr. Shulman: Let’s suppose he does stay with us, let’s suppose we get a guarantee from the government that as they stay in power this minister will stay in his post for the next 25 years. How can we be sure he won’t get a little senile? How can we be sure he isn’t going to do favours for his friends in the future? How can we be sure the old minister won’t get his job back?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You said it.

Mr. Shulman: You can’t and you mustn’t put in this type of secrecy provision when you have the type of discretionary power that you have given yourself earlier in the bill. I suggest to the minister there’s no reason for this secrecy. In years gone by, anyone who wanted to look could go down to the registry office and see what transactions had taken place and at what price. Now the minister had decided, for reasons which I am sure he will explain, we must have secrecy. Before I go any further, will the minister please tell me why section 18?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That’s a very good question.

Hon. Mr. Meen: To begin with, it’s standard. It’s in section 13 of the Gasoline Tax Act and section 52 of the Gift Tax Act. I can tell you of some of the sections in the other Acts. It’s essential that this land of information not be freely available.

If the hon. member is going to refer to orders that might be made exempting people from tax, orders of that sort are published and members and the public will know them.

This provision, I think, can be said to be also standard in the Retail Sales Tax Act. Where one is checking the corporate records of companies as well as individuals, confidentiality of the information obtained has to be the rule.

Mr. Shulman: There is nothing confidential here.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is nothing confidential about information that is developed, let us say in the registry office. You can walk into a registry office and take a look at the land transfer tax affidavit and see the nature of the affidavit that is sworn there. You can, from earlier instruments, perhaps surmise the extent to which tax might have been payable, but the extent to which the tax is payable as developed by this Act is a matter that is of a confidential nature and should only come from the taxpayer himself.

This is the same kind of provision that we have already seen -- and I know the hon. members don’t agree with me on this -- but we have also seen this in the Corporations Tax Act in provisions against the disclosure of information relating to taxable income. It’s appropriate that this section should remain in the bill.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I refer the minister back to section 8(4) where it says: “The minister may, at any time he considers reasonable, assess or reassess any tax payable by any person under this Act.”

There’s nothing there about any order being made, and you know dam well we’re not going to know when you reassess someone’s tax. We have no way of knowing whatsoever.

Now is the minister prepared to go back to section 8 and put it in a few words there, saying that such assessments must be made public? If he is, then I’ll take away my objection; if he’s not, this is an invitation to abuse.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Right.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shulman: Not tonight? We’ll get you.

An hon. member: Right on.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I think that section 8, Mr. Chairman, is not one which allows itself at this point in time to be broken down into a clause-by-clause discussion. I think we’ve got to have a general discussion about the purport of the whole of section 18, because it raises immense problems, and each one of them is interrelated because they are stated to be in particular sections.

I assume therefore, Mr. Chairman, at least until the time that my colleagues in the Liberal Party come back into the House and are able to participate in it, that we could discuss generally some of the questions that are raised by section 18. I say that both in a partisan sense and in a non-partisan sense, because I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), feels very strongly about this particular section.

Mr. Chairman: If you’re still on section 18, your remarks would be in order.

Mr. Renwick: Let me try to break down what the minister is saying in section 18.

First of all, he is talking about the question of persons in the employ of the government of the Province of Ontario and what information they may disclose and to whom. As I understand it, each member of the civil service of the Province of Ontario takes a particular oath with respect to the confidentiality of information that is available to him under the Public Service Act. Is that correct? All right.

To the extent that is necessary -- and in this day and age I share many of the concerns of the hon. member for High Park about the extent to which that kind of secrecy about the government of Ontario, which after all is a people’s government, is required --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Right on.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. Renwick: That was unexpected support, both from the hon. member for -- you know, I know them so well I don’t even have to turn my head -- from the hon. member for Peterborough, who spoke almost as his predecessor would have spoken in this case, and from the hon. member for Dovercourt.

Mr. Turner: Just in support of the former statement; I want to make that clear.

An hon. member: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s a question of what’s right on.

Mr. Renwick: But you will give me credit for knowing them pretty well, eh? I don’t have to turn my head to know who speaks.

Mr. Turner: After 2½ years you should.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well it doesn’t take much to turn your head, does it?

Mr. Renwick: After 2½ years of hearing each of them make about 10 words of comment in the Legislature, I consider it quite a feat.

Mr. Turner: That’s not true.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the whole question of the extent to which the civil servants of the Province of Ontario should be bound by some kind of an oath of secrecy with respect to the public business of the Province of Ontario which is not related to national security, the armed forces, the traditional areas of military or other kinds of political intelligence, there is a lot to be said for the government taking upon itself a very thoughtful concern about redoing the responsibilities with respect to the openness of government.

That speaks for itself. Therefore, if my understanding is correct, and if the oath is taken under the Public Service Act, as I understand it is, we do not need to have the restrictions that are included in sections 18(1) and 18(2).

Then we come to subsection 3, which permits disclosure for the purpose of court proceedings. I doubt very much whether it’s anything more than words. My own guess is that any member of the government of the Province of Ontario would not be protected in a court of law if he were summoned as a witness to give evidence with respect to the matters which are subject to criminal proceedings under any Act of the Parliament of Canada, or proceedings in respect of the trial of any persons for an offence under an Act of the Legislature, or with respect to the enforcement provisions of this Act.

Now my own guess is that no criminal court and no court with respect to the enforcement of the revenue statutes of this province is going to allow some member of the civil service of the Province of Ontario to claim some executive privilege, a la Richard Nixon, with respect to the matters which are peculiarly within his knowledge, and so impede legitimate enforcement; not because of any superior power of the judiciary but because the criminal law of Canada and the law of the Province of Ontario creating offences, and the revenue laws of the Province of Ontario, originate right here. Any court is going to give credence to the powers which are necessary for the enforcement of the laws made by this assembly and made by the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.

So what we are really talking about so far is, in my judgment, if I may use the term -- and I hope I am not asked to spell it -- is gobbledygook. Because it just doesn’t make sense. And then in subsection 4 we have “bureaucratese” at its very best or worst, depending on how you look at it. Here you have an authorization for somebody in the employment of the government of Ontario to communicate with other persons in the employ of the government of Ontario about matters on which they have been precluded from talking about to anybody else in the first place.

I think that becomes almost a never-never land when you start talking about the employees of the government of Ontario not being able to communicate with anybody about anything which they know, and then you have to carve out an exception that employees of the government of Ontario can talk to other employees in the government of the Province of Ontario about matters related to the enforcement of the laws of the Province of Ontario.

You do the civil service of the Province of Ontario no tribute when you put in that kind of a clause, because it is just ridiculous to have to have that kind of a clause in the bill.

Then we have the provisions related, as I understand it, to subsection 5 and subsection 6, which permits copies of documents or any kind of a document to be given to the person from whom the book or document was obtained, or to any person for the purpose of any objection or appeal which he is going to be taking under the Act.

Then in subsection 6 we have the provision that any of this information may be given to, “a minister of the government of Canada, or any officer or employee under a minister of the government of Canada, for the purpose of any Act of the Parliament of Canada.”

So we carve out something called another exception. And we permit it also to be given to “a minister of the government of any province of Canada, or officer or employee employed under that minister,” for the purpose of the administration of the laws of any other province in Canada -- and then there is the strange qualification:

“ -- if the minister of the government of Canada or the minister of the government of any other province, as the case may be, is permitted to give to the minister information or copies of any book, record, writing, return or other document obtained by or on behalf of the minister of the government of Canada, or the minister of the government of that other province, as the case may be, in the administration or enforcement of the Act for the purposes of the administration of this Act.”

You know, that’s “You pat my back, I’ll pat yours. If you let me get information from you, I will give you information about the citizens of the Province of Ontario.” That is an extremely dangerous section to have in a taxing Act or in any other kind of an Act.

Mr. Sargent: The member for Riverdale is right.

Mr. Renwick: I thank the member for Grey-Bruce. I knew I would have his support tonight.

Mr. Sargent: All the way.

Mr. Renwick: So we have section 18 of the bill with 6 subsections which are involved with something called the secrecy of government and the avenues within which that secrecy may be breached. I think what the member for High Park has said before -- and what other members of this party, particularly in the House of Commons in Ottawa have said -- is that the secrecy of government in the Province of Ontario, in many areas, is no longer a valid concept.

It is an open government. It is a democratic government. It is elected by the people. The people are entitled to know what goes on within their government, and they are particularly entitled to know with respect to the transactions relating to land in the Province of Ontario.

You may say, and other people may say, that there may be, somewhere out there, some areas of information which must be confidential to government and not available to the citizen. But I defy the minister to say there is anything dealing with transactions related to land in the Province of Ontario to which the minister is now a party -- and that’s every transaction --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: -- which is not, in the initial instance, a matter of public knowledge and must be a matter of public knowledge.

The people in the Province of Ontario are entitled to that public knowledge and they are entitled to know who owned the land; who has transferred the land; whether taxes have been paid; whether taxes haven’t been paid; whether there are corporations involved in it; whether corporations have transferred land; whether there have been all sorts of corporate reorganizations taking place affecting land in the Province of Ontario -- that is all a matter of public knowledge and public record.

The minister can bang his desk in exasperation. I’m telling him, and I hope some of my colleagues will try to convince him, that this whole section is misconceived in the perspective with which it looks at the problem.

Mr. Sargent: The member is right.

Mr. Renwick: I think we should start from the proposition that what happens to land in the Province of Ontario, with respect to its ownership and with respect to the taxes which are paid in respect of the transfer of that land, is a matter of public record. That’s what we start from. Everybody is entitled to know that. I am entitled to know that as a citizen of the province and I am not prepared to suggest that this minister, in this strange way in which he has done it, can impose some kind of cloak of secrecy about dealings in land in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: He’s right.

Mr. Renwick: Even if you were to grant the proposition which I make to you it would be immensely difficult. Even if all of the record were public, open and available, it would be immensely difficult to trace the actual ownership and control of land in the Province of Ontario because this government has, over the years, allowed that whole question of public knowledge to become something which cannot now be penetrated by the ordinary citizen.

The government of the Province of Ontario does not know who owns the land in the Province of Ontario; there is no record of it. The effect, of course, is that we have this kind of statute before us, because the government is lacking the knowledge it should have.

One can go back, also, theoretically, because in theory all the land in the Province of Ontario has been granted by the Crown. Everybody knows that somewhere in the background of the title to every piece of property in the Province of Ontario there is a Letters Patent of the Crown. That grant was public knowledge and the succeeding ownership of every piece of land in the Province of Ontario is public knowledge.

If the government is proposing a tax with respect to the transfer of land the questions relating to the transfer of land and who owned it before; who owned it afterward; what tax was payable; who now owns vast conglomerations of land in the Province of Ontario; are public knowledge. There is nothing to suggest for one single moment in a bill such as this that there is one iota of justification for saying that the civil servants of the Province of Ontario cannot talk about the ownership of land in Ontario, cannot talk about the transactions affecting land in the Province of Ontario, that the minister wouldn’t feel compelled to publish an annual report reporting to this Legislature with respect to the transactions in land in the Province of Ontario.

Members of this assembly sat on the select committee dealing for some considerable time with economic nationalism in the province, and the validity of the arguments which have been made in their reports and the validity of the appointment of that committee, because it reflects the feelings of the people in the Province of Ontario, is related to the ownership of land more than any other single economic object.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Renwick: And all of that information must be public.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: All right, I am not going to argue with the minister tonight on the question of individuals’ personal income tax and the privacy of that information. The government of the Province of Ontario for practical purposes pretends it doesn’t levy an income tax, and of course they rely on the Income Tax Act of the government of Canada. I am not going to argue that question. That poses some different problems with respect to the privacy of individuals. Those are very real problems and this government certainly has not shown that it knows how to deal with that kind of a problem, because they are now going to proclaim that disastrous Act relating to the collection of private information about citizens in the Province of Ontario on July 2 or some such anniversary date of the founding of the country.

But you cannot equate that kind of relationship to questions related to land in the Province of Ontario. Everyone, whether he’s a schoolboy, a schoolgirl, a graduate of the university, a student at the university or post-secondary education institution; a lawyer, an accountant, an educated concerned citizen; is entitled to know everything about land transactions in the Province of Ontario. There is nothing private about them, there is nothing sacrosanct about them, there is nothing sacrosanct about the information relating to those transactions.

Mr. Sargent: It’s a lawyer’s signature, that’s all it is.

Mr. Renwick: This section is just totally misconceived. And it is misconceived in the minds of those people who collect the revenue, because they somehow or other think that the information which they get in this field is related to information which they may have obtained in other fields.

As far as we are concerned, this particular section of the bill is anathema. We can’t believe in it. We can’t really understand that the minister would, for one single moment, say what he has had to say about this section of the bill. The only answer that he gave to my colleague from High Park was that it contained in some other statutes related to the gasoline tax.

What conceivable bearing the Gasoline Tax Act would have, I can’t imagine. I don’t really think that any citizen in the Province of Ontario would consider that his privacy was being invaded if employees of the government of Ontario were free to provide information related to who did or did not pay gasoline tax in the Province of Ontario.

All of those matters are matters on which it is extremely difficult to persuade the government to change its viewpoint. They are immersed in a traditional view which no longer has any validity.

The minister knows that one of the major problems with respect to the development of housing in the province is who owns the land. And the province doesn’t know who owns the land. The province talks about developers who are holding blocks of land from the marketplace in the Province of Ontario, who are delaying the servicing of land for the provision of housing. The minister knows very well that any well-ordered government in the Province of Ontario at this time would know exactly who owned every parcel of land in the province --

Mr. Sargent: Hear, hear!

Mr. Renwick: -- and it would also know the corporate relationships of every corporation that owned land in the Province of Ontario. But they have defaulted so badly with respect to the original perception of that land of basic government policy related to land that they have allowed the facilities which are available to them to fall into disuse.

I am particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about corporations owning land in the province. There is no question whatsoever that we have no index, we have no information; all we have is smatterings of information which have been collated by those persons who have gone to the trouble to collect it.

Mr. Sargent: Sure.

Mr. Renwick: Do you realize -- and I think everyone must realize -- that the original framework of the government of Upper Canada and of the successor Province of Ontario has been to recognize the importance of land, so much so that it is required that every corporation that owns land in the Province of Ontario must do so under the authority of a licence? And those licences were always renewable.

You could get a licence in perpetuity for a specific piece of land in the Province of Ontario; but then one day the government of the province, succumbing as it did to the corporate pressures, permitted corporations to get a licence to hold unspecified lands up to a certain dollar value by paying a particular fee, and they were able to get a general licence in perpetuity.

If you look at, as the minister looked at, before he was elevated or translated or whatever happened to him, the question of loan and trust corporations, we have always been extremely jealous about who could, as corporate bodies, hold mortgages on land in the Province of Ontario. That information is public. There is nothing private about it. The minister cannot stand here in this Legislature and tell us that a section such as section 18 is either necessary, advisable, wise or otherwise.

The minister can laugh all he wants, because that means he is blanking out, I know the minister well enough to know all of his defensive techniques. He can’t blank out on this one.

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t know!

Mr. Renwick: What we are saying, and saying very clearly to the minister is that every transaction, the value of every transaction, the tax implications of every transaction relating to land in the Province of Ontario, including all of the abstruse art of the conveyancers and the lawyers with respect to the conveyancing profession, is public knowledge. Every single item of it is public knowledge.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I believe the member is straying from section 18.

Mr. Sargent: He is right on target.

Mr. Renwick: I am delighted to think, Mr. Chairman, that you think I am straying from section 18.

Mr. Sargent: Keep on going, it’s okay.

Mr. Renwick: This is the section which precludes the citizen of the Province of Ontario from knowing about land transactions in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the chairman try to follow the vote?

Mr. Renwick: We are simply going to oppose each and every subsection of this section 18, and if necessary we will record a vote on each and every subsection of section 18 --

Mr. Sargent: Right!

Mr. Renwick: -- because it is unnecessary; in 1974 it is unwise. The minister is foolish to bring it into the Legislature and he must give us some reason other than the fatuous reason -- if I may use that term about the minister’s remarks -- that it is in the Gasoline Tax Act and that therefore it should be in this Act.

I want also to know why the minister now feels that if the other jurisdictions in Canada are prepared to exchange information with him he should be allowed to exchange information with them about an Act relating to speculative transactions with respect to the ownership of land in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: Good for you.

Mr. Renwick: That is an open door for government abuse, ministerial abuse -- and as Lord Acton said, power corrupts; and after 34 years you are very close to it.

Mr. Sargent: The Gestapo.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I would say this: Taxes, particularly taxes in the private sector, are a private matter. Taxes basically are a private matter as between the taxpayer and the Crown --

Mr. Sargent: Like hell they are! They are public knowledge.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: To the extent that a taxpayer corporation may required to disclose the amount of taxes paid in its corporate information returns or the returns and information filed for the benefit of its shareholders it may become public knowledge.

Mr. Sargent: Have they taken your books lately? Have they walked in and taken your books lately?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But other than that, that is strictly a private matter.

Mr. Renwick: There is nothing private about land in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: Not at all, it’s public knowledge.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are dealing in the same area here as the information required under the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Mr. Renwick: It is entirely different.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are dealing with the cost figures in corporation and individual income returns. When they come to us with their figures on the sale of a piece of property, when they show us certain expenditures they incurred, when they come to us with their figures showing their costs of renovation, we are dealing with confidential material which no one should be required to make public.

Mr. Renwick: It’s not confidential if it relates to land in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member for Riverdale talks about land, and the sale prices of land. I say to him yes, that is now public. There is no reason why it shouldn’t continue to be public. But when the province steps in to exact a tax on speculative profits on the increases in the values of the land-charge off a tax against the land in relation to the particular transaction -- in assessing that tax and deriving certain information from the taxpayer in order to determine from that, in turn, what kind of tax is payable, there is no reason why, in deriving that information, that taxpayer should be laid open to inspection of his records by the public.

Subsections 1 and 2 of section 18 of the bill look after that. Subsection (3) exempts from those -- and the hon. member might have been quoting from it from the way he covered the three different sections -- criminal proceedings, the proceedings in a trial for an offence under an Act of the Legislature, and proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of the Act, or the collection or assessment of tax.

In subsection 4 he talks about and complains about the right of employees of, say my ministry, to discuss these matters with members of other ministries. I point out to him this is not --

Mr. Renwick: It’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- a ridiculous provision; it is an essential provision when we are dealing closely with another ministry such as Treasury and Economics. It is essential that there be a freedom of flow of information between those two ministries -- and indeed for others as well I would expect, but those are the two major ministries that would be involved. All of the people in the two ministries, of course, are, as the member for Riverdale indicated, under their own individual oaths of secrecy.

The reciprocal provisions dealing with communication with other governments in other provinces are just exactly that. We need to have from them certain information, in order to be able to determine that the taxpayer whom we are looking at is giving other jurisdictions in which he may be operating the same kind of information he is giving us. By the same token, they will only give us that information if we are in a position to reciprocate to them.

This applies with the federal government and it applies with virtually all the other provinces. I’m not sure about the Province of Quebec, their being under the Civil Code. I recall that under me Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Act -- at least some years ago; it may or may not be the case today -- there was no reciprocity between Ontario and Quebec, although there was between Ontario and I believe most of the other common law provinces of Canada.

The same sort of thing I would expect applies here, that under this Act, where there was this reciprocity provision, we would be in a position to obtain necessary information from the other jurisdictions concerning certain of our taxpayers, when we are investigating their returns and determining whether they are subject to any tax under this Act.

Mr. Renwick: If they own land in the Province of Ontario they are within your jurisdiction and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is no doubt in mind but that there may well be some non-resident corporations which we would have to look at which are in other jurisdictions besides our own and to which we would have to look for information. If the hon. member thinks back to the deemed disposition provisions dealing with land here in Ontario, he will recognize there are some taxpayers outside the province to whom we would have to look.

Mr. Renwick: Most of them are foreign controlled multinational corporations they don’t reside in the other provinces of Canada. They reside like Eagle Star, or whatever their name is, in London or in Switzerland or Saudi Arabia. How are you going to get information about them?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Be that as it may, we would seek the information on a reciprocal basis from whatever jurisdiction we were able to get the information and in this case, at least within the provincial area of Canada.

I think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member would be doing the people of this province a great disservice if he were to suggest we should remove the provisions of section 18 which are and will be very effective in being able to investigate and determine the extent of tax that is payable and to enforce the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Renwick: That is not so, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Of course, I recognize that the NDP are against the Act anyway; so perhaps I should have expected they would oppose the section that puts some bite into the Act and gives some capacity to administer it, which is precisely what these provisions can do.

Mr. Shulman: There is no bite in the Act.

Mr. Renwick: There is no bite at all.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You’re dreaming.

Mr. Shulman: Put bite in the minister and not in the Act.

Mr. MacDonald: This government is a greater menace than even I thought.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would certainly suggest that it would be a great disservice to the Act and to the people, were we to amend section 18 in any way.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I only want to make a couple of points because I think I tried to express the total misconception that the minister is operating under and, of course, after 1975 we will change this.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Renwick: To the extent that land is controlled in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Stokes: We are just expediting the process.

Mr. Renwick: -- by people who are not resident in the Province of Ontario, corporations or otherwise, they are generally not within the jurisdiction of any other province in Canada. Let’s not kid ourselves because you can pat the backs of the other ministers in the other provinces and the federal minister to get information about citizens that you can escape the responsibility that this Act is inadequate for the purposes of deciding what to do about Eagle Star.

What is the name of the company where they have changed the name of Eagle Star in England? They’ve got immense controlling interest in the Province of Ontario and the Swiss people have. German money is involved in land in the Province of Ontario and Saudi Arabian money will be very quickly involved in the Province of Ontario. There is nothing in this Act which gives you any authority to get any information about them. There are very few major corporations existing in the provinces -- certainly not in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but maybe in Alberta -- that have some controlling interest in the province.

Let me also point out that the minister cannot get away from the fact that we are not saying there isn’t some responsibility on the civil servants of the province. I believe the civil service oath under the Public Service Act is quite adequate to protect the Province of Ontario legitimately with respect to matters which are of some confidential nature. There is nothing which the minister has said which would indicate to me that every single transaction with respect to land in the Province of Ontario is and must be in the starting place a matter of public record, a matter of public knowledge and a matter of the obligation of the ministry to disclose it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on your behalf, because obviously as the chairman you won’t have the opportunity to express something which you have adequately expressed before, that is, that this section of the Act flies in the face of the recommendations of the select committee of which the Chairman and I are members, and which are contained in the interim report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism on foreign ownership of Ontario real estate. And your colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) --

Mr. Chairman: Does it come in section 18?

Mr. Deans: Yes, it does indeed, sir, and I am going to tell you how. I know you won’t believe it, but I am going to let you know about it.

Your colleague, the Minister of Housing, also took part in the deliberations of that particular portion of the select committee’s work, and we came to the following conclusion, as contained on page 41, under the heading, “9. Information”:

“The committee has already identified the lack of comprehensive information on patterns of foreign ownership of land in Ontario. While the committee has been presented with sufficient evidence for it to make determinations with respect to foreign ownership of land in a variety of areas, the committee is convinced that further information and a continuing monitoring process would be desirable.”

We therefore made a recommendation, if the minister would care to listen, since it happens to be pertinent and deals directly with this section --

Mr. Renwick: He is immensely irritated; he really is. He is so irritated he is likely to be here for some time.

Mr. Stokes: It is not that he is irritated.

He has become irrelevant.

Mr. Deans: No, it is not that --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He will go from exasperation all the way to hysteria.

Mr. Deans: The minister may not think what I have to say is relevant, but I want to assure him that it is. The committee, which was an all-party committee, as he knows, made the following recommendation:

“The committee accordingly recommends that the government prepare and publish on an annual basis, detailed ownership and residence data by region and by use, for land owned both by individuals and corporations in the province. The committee further recommends that such data be developed in a manner which will generally support and facilitate the ongoing analysis of the behaviour and performance of real estate markets and institutions in Ontario.”

I might point out that that recommendation was not one of those that had a dissent entered against it by any member of the committee; in other words, it was the unanimous conclusion of all of the members of the committee that that particular section was valid and valuable. In fact, not only was it valid and valuable, it was of considerable concern to the committee in its deliberations that it was virtually impossible to determine ownership and use of land in the province, and that in order for us to be able to carry on in a reasonable way with regard to the use to which land might be put and to the ownership changes, this kind of recommendation was vital.

I am frankly concerned. In the bill which preceded this one, I began by saying to the minister that I had sat on a select committee which had spent many long hours trying to come to sensible conclusions about a number of areas, including the ownership of land. I felt then, and I feel now -- this is directly related to this particular section -- that the government, and if not the government this minister, has ignored completely all of the work done by the committee.

This recommendation we made is clear. There can be absolutely no doubt about it. It stands on its own merit. It stands alone and by itself under a single heading. It is not sort of lumped in and hidden in the centre of the report. It is flagged by the committee as being one of those things that would be vital in determining land use and land ownership.

It is evident, as our committee said to the Legislature through its report, that it is necessary to prepare and publish on an annual basis, detailed ownership and residence data regarding land. It is something that we felt extremely strong about.

I want to suggest to the minister that if he has a valid reason for not doing that, then I wish he would have come forward to the committee when we were studying the matter and had made his representations there. Or if he didn’t make his representations there. I wish those people in his ministry who obviously know all about this matter had come forward to the committee, as other ministries did from time to time, to make their views known, because we obviously wasted our time.

Why is it that the minister has rejected this information section of the committee’s report, published in 1973, which demands that the government establish and publish information with regard to the ownership of land? Why have we opted out from that recommendation?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Shulman: Wait a minute; aren’t you going to even answer it?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure, when we get back to the section.

Mr. Renwick: This is right on the section and you know it.

Mr. Shulman: It is on this section.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Now stop the fencing. Get with it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Renwick: Get with it.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a fairly normal procedure, almost routine in the House, that in committee the minister makes some kind of an inept performance. It may be attributed to his degree of exasperation; that’s just too bad about him. This is the work of this House and the issues being raised were legitimate and --

Mr. Shulman: Well, the member for Wentworth was right on the section.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I know, I can hear quite well --

Mr. Shulman: The minister should reply; he is out of order.

Mr. Lawlor: I have three points I want to raise; one has to do with the very issue that was being discussed recently. Surely, with the alteration of the perspective and the philosophy of the government towards land ownership and land use in the Province of Ontario, a land inventory ought to be made available and not kept secretly enclosed in the breast of the minister, or that little cabal he set up in this section who would have privy knowledge to this sort of thing. It should be generally available to the public of Ontario, whom you might take into your confidence on occasion.

That would be the first thing that would be requisite. And it can be done and performed and substantially promoted through the operations of this particular legislation if you had the vision, courage and half the imagination you should have in bringing this kind of legislation into being. This is the opportunity -- and, of course, on a vital thing of that kind, you let it go swimming by.

There is the second area that I want to mention. I don’t understand for the life of me, as a lawyer, that in your subsection 2 you go to great care to say that none of the members of your ministry, no officials and so on, may be obliged to testify in any court. And then you carve out and say, “Oh, but if a criminal matter, or a quasi-criminal matter within provincial jurisdiction is before the courts, of course they may appear.” Documents may be subpoenaed. The tiling may be brought before a judge. But in civil proceedings, you go to very considerable length to withhold, to suppress, to keep from the courts information --

Mr. Renwick: Good point.

Mr. Lawlor: -- which is very relevant. The courts, after all, are public forums financed through the public realm at enormous costs to the general public. And there is this strange little notion of some kind of private quarrel carried on in some arcane courtroom in which you have no interest. The most vital fact of the whole case is held and retained in your file. It would do no harm in any public sense to anybody to have it made available in the course of the proceedings themselves. It is absolutely vital, really, to the determination of justice in the case, and all this is dropped in your silver box and placed away in your hope chest.

When are you going to open up the procedures in the civil area? The civil area has public implication as much as the criminal area and your information, upon subpoena and upon proper grounds, ought to made readily available.

It should go this far, in my opinion; that on occasion you would appear before the civil courts as a friend of that court, knowing that the issue in question was peculiarly within your ambit and the knowledge was not immediately available or within the knowledge of either one or the other of the litigants in the trial. Because it may be in both their bloody interests to suppress the information that you peculiarly have and which, from the point of view of the judge in administering that case and reaching a determination, ought to be made available. And you should have discretionary powers and you should make a determination.

I can imagine all kinds of cases which would turn upon privy information that you would have in your files arising out of the incidence of this tax -- where it fell, how it fell, the way in which it was arrived at. All this sort of information could be a subject of a civil suit going on. And you remain obtuse, blind and aloof, as though it was no interest of yours whatsoever as to what was going on in the courts of this province in this particular regard.

The last area that I want to mention is the business of your -- well, I suppose the easy way to express it is to say your huge collusive leviathan contained in the trading of information, discreetly, secretly, behind your hand and under the board, as between the various government levels, again without the public or members of this House, by and large anybody except yourselves, being in any way aware of that. This trading of notes can become a highly vicious, highly inbreeding thing. If the banking institutions of the country -- and I hope they don’t, and I’m told they don’t -- were to trade notes day after day upon their whole realm of customers as to who has what, who is borrowing from whom, what security is being placed forward, that whole situation would run directly against the basic of the new Competition Act. That would be a festering, central sore of collusive information being supplied to a basic maw, to a leviathan, and caught in its coils would be a whole citizenry and everything that I thought was a privileged communication between me and my banker would become generally, abroad within that very privileged little community, the banking institution.

That’s precisely what you do in a different way, but at a governmental level. You do it with impunity, and you do it with your tongue in your cheek. You think somehow there’s integrity in it, that you’re somehow blessed in that process. I find the thing distasteful. I find it terribly bureaucratic and affirmative of bureaucratic instincts, and I think that that particular clause and all of its ramifications ought to be wiped out.

As my colleague has indicated, therefore, in pretty well subsection after subsection of this section, which you would think ostensibly on the surface ought not to arouse so much rancour and such high tones, nevertheless, upon inspection and investigation you don’t do what you ought to do, you do do what you oughn’t to do and that’s the history of this bill.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with interest to the arguments put forth by the NDP, and I marvel at the inconsistency of their argument. They are so concerned that the --

Hon. Mr. Meen: You are right. I marvel too.

Mr. Lawlor: You can see that Singer has left the House and we have to rely on the second row.

Mr. Good: Just listen for a while and you’ll hear. They are so concerned about the tax imposed being set in lines of confidentiality. Now, no one argues with the fact that there is public knowledge and public disclosure as to who owns land. This is not the point in question here.

Mr. Renwick: And who pays tax and who buys it.

Mr. Good: Transfer of land has always been public knowledge and is easy to find out. This section, the way I read it, deals with the confidentiality or the tax involved with the transfer of land. And when we get to the point where tax cannot be a matter of confidentiality --

Mr. Renwick: Where does it say that?

Mr. Good: -- then I think this is all part of the --

Mr. Renwick: Where does it say that?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Good: -- NDP plot that they don’t believe in the private ownership of land. It amounts to that exactly.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Renwick: Where does it say anything to do with that?

Mr. Good: Inconsistent with your argument --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You go to the land registry office if you want to know who owns land, you know that.

Mr. Good: -- is the fact that they don’t feel that the government should communicate. Well, I agree with that part of their argument about one arm of government communicating with another arm of government with information which I feel should be peculiar and secret to that particular arm of government. And they would be the first to holler if things were different in that regard.

But I do find their position very inconsistent when they say that the tax involved with transfers should be public knowledge.

Mr. Renwick: You worry about the consistency of your position.

Mr. Roy: You just listen.

Mr. Good: No one is arguing that the ownership of land is not public knowledge. You can go down to the registry office any time you want and find out who owns what parcel of land.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t and you know it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: What we’re dealing with here is tax involved on the transfer of land.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t go down to any registry office and find out who controls what.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Good: My own impulse is simply that I see nothing wrong with preserving the confidentiality of the tax involved in the transaction of a transfer of land.

Mr. Renwick: You can find the registered owner but that won’t give you the information you need and you know it. And the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) is not in his right seat. Why don’t you go out and raid a few motels?

Mr. Good: I also feel that we are getting too much collusion among the various arms of government and among the various levels of government when we had the condition where information is supplied by one level of government to another level of government to keep track of the people down at the bottom making the transaction -- this “Big Brother” attitude of one level of government keeping tabs on the individual, to the detriment of that individual and possibly of another level of government.

It just occurs to me that some time ago, it could be a year or more ago, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) indicated that the new assessment data gathered by the province would be available to the federal government for a fee, I believe he said. I could be wrong on this, but it just runs in my mind that it was indicated by the government that when the new data is available on computer that that information would be for sale to the federal government to be used, I suppose, as they see fit in the calculation of their capital gains tax on the disposal of personal property that would be assessed under the provincial assessment procedures.

I, for one, do not feel that this is a legitimate use of information by one level of government among other arms of government. We have this separation of taxing information from another level of information and I don’t think, unless it is for criminal matters, that it should be available from one level of government to the others. I think the whole argument put forth by the NDP is inconsistent from one end of their argument to the other.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: I must, with reluctance, enter the debate on this bill, which I thought I was going to sit through without saying anything on, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roy: The member would have hurt our feelings if he had done that.

Mr. Shulman: I am directing my remarks more to my right than across the floor, because across the floor I have more or less given up on but I want to have some unanimity here.

This section, section 18, is a blanket coverage. It says no information may be given out. What are the various pieces of information that could be sought? There could be the value of the property at the time it was sold.

Mr. Roy: You can get that in the registry office.

Mr. Shulman: That’s available anyway. All right.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not necessarily so.

Mr. Shulman: The second piece of information you might be seeking is the value of the property on April 9, 1974, because that’s the second piece of information they will have so they can calculate their tax.

We went through that a dozen times with the minister and the way he is going to figure that is by getting Teela surveys.

Mr. Good: He already knows that.

Mr. Shulman: As we got it out from him he said he was going to use the Teela surveys, which are available to you or me. He is going to use the market assessment, which is a matter of public record. He is going to use the sales in the area immediately around it at that time, which are also a matter of public record. So that piece of information isn’t secret either.

Now what is the one piece of information we are not going to be able to get? Anybody can figure out what the tax is. All you have to do is deduct the price on April 9, 1974, from the price at the time of selling and divide by two. But what is the one piece of information we can’t get, the one piece of information that really will be kept hidden by this Act?

I suggest to you, look back at section 8, subsection 4 and let me read that to you: “The minister may at any time he considers reasonable, assess or reassess any tax payable by any person under this Act. Now that’s the piece of information we won’t be able to get. Doesn’t that disturb you in any way?

Mr. Good: Do you want your income tax reassessed and made public?

Mr. Shulman: Let’s just suppose that you and I each happen to be selling a piece of property. The properties are exactly comparable, we both happen to buy them on the very same day, we both happen to sell them on the same day -- just for me sake of comparison -- and we both happen to make $50,000 on it. You pay your $25,000 but I phone my good friend Art and I say, “I sent Mr. Kelly a little present this morning, how about exempting me?” He says, “No problem, I will put the rule through,” because --

Mr. Good: You can’t legislate honesty anyway.

Mr. Shulman: -- because it is a secret and there is no way that we would ever know such a thing has taken place.

Mr. Roy: That’s the problem. You couldn’t block that anyway. Income tax is --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Back to section 18.

Mr. Shulman: I am on section 18.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the theoretical examples are not.

Mr. Shulman: What I am saying is, the minister has taken such powers unto himself, and the powers given him under this Act, regardless of what the Act says, allow him to cut that tax to nothing, to cut it in half, to do anything he wishes with it, and he can do it for his friends if he wishes, and no one in this province will know about it --

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: -- it will be a deep, dark secret. That is all section 18 does, because everything else is available. All the other information is available. You are giving an open invitation to a future minister to reward his friends and nobody will know about it. It is an open invitation for powerful, rich corporations and individuals in this province who try to subvert the course of this Act. It is an open invitation for people to get preferential treatment -- and why? There is nothing else that’s kept secret in this Act. Everything else is available. The value at the time of purchase is available. The value at the time of sale is available. It’s all freely available for anybody who wants to look at it. There’s only one thing kept hidden.

All right. I want to ask the minister a question. He said to me earlier when I presented this argument to him: “Oh! It’s not secret. Any time that I do such a thing there will be an order made and you will read it.” I looked back under section 8, subsection 4. Where does it say anything about such orders being made public? That’s the question, but the minister didn’t recognize it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think you should look at section 22, subsection 2, Mr. Chairman, when we get to that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 18 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Shulman: No sireel We’re looking at section 22, subsection 2. Do you want to go into it?

Mr. Chairman: Not for discussion, though.

Mr. Shulman: If this is his answer --

Mr. Chairman: I know what was said, thank you.

Mr. Shulman: -- “Not for discussion.” We’re on section 18.

Mr. Chairman: We’re on section 18.

Mr. Shulman: The minister says it’s section 22, subsection 2, which has nothing to do with it. I’m going to read it.

I’ve got section 22, subsection 2 here. There is nothing. Would the minister mind telling me under what subsection it says he must make these things public? That’s the regulation and would be under subsection 2 question.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Provisions for exemption of property from tax are provided for by of section 22; it would be subsection (a) of subsection 2 of 22. When we get that I’m sure the members will be --

Mr. Good: You have to issue an order in council --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If we just depart from this for just a moment. I don’t like to break our own rules on this, but “exempting from tax any designated land, or class of designated land or exempting from tax any designated land with respect to which any disposition or class of disposition occurs” is by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. And, of course, those are public -- and that’s what I was talking about.

Mr. Shulman: Okay. Now let’s just come back to that. What it says is that the “Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations.” It says “may make regulations.” That is a regulation which may or may not come forth, but we do have a section already, section 8, subsection 4, passed here: “The minister may, at any time he considers reasonable, assess or reassess any tax payable by any person under this Act.”

Mr. Good: Why couldn’t he do that in public?

Mr. Shulman: Sure, but we know about it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You have probably no more opportunity of knowing about a reassessment for income tax purposes under the Income Tax Act of Canada than you would under this. And the hon. member for Waterloo North has expressed my position so well that I won’t burden Hansard a second time with the same argument.

Mr. Shulman: The minister may not burden Hansard, but I’m going to burden Hansard a little bit.

Mr. MacDonald: You would expect the Liberals and Tories to continue this secrecy. They’ve been doing it for a 100 years.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): So why have you been voting together?

Mr. MacDonald: Not on this one, you can bet your bottom dollar.

Mr. Shulman: Are you calling me a socialist?

An hon. member: You have been called worse things.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is really hard to tell.

Mr. Roy: Get up and confuse the issue.

Mr. Good: Those guys on the NDP front bench don’t even want him on their side.

Mr. Shulman: I think you may have misconstrued what they have said. I’m not really worrying what they are saying because they’re not in power.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Let’s get back to section 18.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for High Park on section 18.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister, inasmuch as all the other information is available in public records, what possible purpose is there for having this secrecy? That is, unless he is keeping this little ace in his back pocket in case, at some future date, some minister of the Tory government wants to do something that would be embarrassing if made public. Is there any other reason that you need the secrecy rule there, because every other piece of information is public record? If there is, I would surely like to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t know how many times I have to say something to get it through to the member for High Park; but I would point out to him that I can envisage cases where I would need information from other jurisdictions which would not be available to me if we did not have this kind of secrecy provision -- which is standard in all our taxing legislation, in any event.

Mr. Renwick: Oh come off it.

Mr. MacDonald: The government is now in a conspiracy against the public in your concept.

Mr. Shulman: No one is going to accept that.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): We all accept it except you.

Mr. Shulman: I want to point out a parallel to section 18.

Mr. Stokes: Is the member for Parry Sound in the right seat? Is he in the right seat?

Mr. Shulman: There are other Acts that have a similar section, and in each and every case there has been abuse under the present government. The one that comes to mind, of course, is the one under the Liquor Licence Act.

Now I am telling the minister he is making a serious error, and I am not doubting his integrity, I am not questioning it in the slightest bit, but he is not always going to be the minister. There are going to be other ministers come along. There are going to be temptations within your department to do things that are wrong, and this information should be public.

Now I say at the least, to the minister, if it is not to be made public, if he is adamant on that, surely there should be a provision here making it possible for members of this assembly to examine those records. And if he won’t go that far --

Hon. Mr. Meen: That makes it public right there.

An hon. member: Of course.

Mr. Shulman: If he won’t go that far, surely he should be willing to write into the bill, and I don’t mean into regulations to write into the bill, that any time someone’s tax is not paid because of ministerial order, this must be made public. Now surely the minister isn’t going to refuse that?

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 18 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Shulman: No, it will not; answer the question.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, order.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We are getting very repetitive. We are having the same thing over and over again.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I have to be repetitive if he won’t answer a question. I have asked him a specific question and he hasn’t answered it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It has nothing to do with this section.

Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon; it has to do with this section. The section has to do with secrecy, and the question I am asking the minister is should the secrecy cover ministerial orders reducing tax? Now it’s a simple question. Will the minister not agree with me that when you do one of your friends a favour we should know about it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is like “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Mr. MacDonald: No it is not.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the provisions for abatement of tax, adjustment of tax one way or the other, are I think essentially confidential in nature. They deal with the taxpayer himself and I most certainly will not give any such undertaking.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: That is nonsense.

Mr. Shulman: I am glad that this is on the record, because this is just an open invitation --

Mr. MacDonald: It’s an incredible concept.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member has said that before.

Mr. Shulman: And I may say it again.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. You will not say it.

Mr. Shulman: Well see whether well say it.

Mr. Chairman: All right.

Mr. Shulman: I am going to say it in slightly different words.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member is repeating.

Mr. Shulman: I can’t repeat if you don’t keep quiet. Now let me try it again.

Mr. Chairman: I’ve heard the member repeat it before. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think many of the arguments --

Mr. Stokes: Hold your applause, he hasn’t voted for it.

Mr. Taylor: -- that have been advanced in connection with the opposition to this section are merely specious. If you look at section 18, what I think it is trying to do is protect the information that may have been obtained through section 12. Under section 12, if you look at that, it says:

“Any person thereunto authorized by the minister for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act may at all reasonable times enter into any premises where any business is carried on or any property is kept or anything is done in connection with any business or where any books or records are or should be kept, and may:

“(a) audit or examine the books, records, accounts, vouchers, letters, telegrams, or other documents that relate or may relate to any disposition of designated land or to the amount of tax paid under this Act.”

And it goes on and on. And you go down to:

“(d) if during the course of an audit or examination it appears to him that there has been a contravention of this Act or the regulations, seize and take away any of the records, books, accounts, vouchers, letters, telegrams and other documents -- ”

Mr. Renwick: Too bad you weren’t here to vote against that section.

Mr. Taylor: “ -- and retain them until they are produced in any court proceeding.”

Now surely the intention is not to permit all of that material to be reproduced and distributed at will --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: -- regardless of whether there has been any violation of the Act or not.

Mr. Renwick: Nobody suggested that at all.

Mr. Taylor: That is precisely what the members of the NDP are suggesting.

Mr. Renwick: That is not correct and you know it.

Mr. Taylor: I think that surely there is merit in section 18.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Frankly I doubt whether it even goes far enough in protecting the individual; because we all know, and surely the member for High Park knows, that it doesn’t take very much to extract from the civil service information that would normally be considered confidential.

An hon. member: You are right on.

Mr. Renwick: This relates to public business.

Mr. Taylor: It is not a matter of public business. That type of information could be used to the detriment of many honest people --

Mr. Shulman: How?

Mr. Taylor: -- who were not circumventing the provisions of the statute but may nevertheless be subject to an investigation. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am holding in support of this section.

Mr. Renwick: That is not right and you know it.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I must set the member for Prince Edward-Lennox straight --

An hon. member: The member for High Park is being ridiculous.

Mr. Shulman: -- inasmuch as he completely misconstrued what was said, or misunderstood or didn’t understand.

Mr. Taylor: You are the one who has misconstrued.

Mr. Shulman: Well listen carefully and perhaps you’ll understand.

Mr. Taylor: If your horse chestnuts or chestnuts didn’t go so fast one wouldn’t wonder what you were talking about.

Mr. Shulman: I’m not too expert on chestnuts or horse chestnuts, but I understand crooks when I see them.

Mr. Taylor: I doubt that.

An hon. member: It takes one to know one.

Mr. Shulman: And potential crooks. Now, Mr. Chairman, to come back, no one has suggested that the information developed under section 12 should be made public. But we are referring to section 18 and the specific question I asked the minister and the specific potential abuse that I pointed out to him was the possibility that a future minister might reduce the tax.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. This is very repetitive.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, you allowed the member --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I call the member to order.

Mr. Shulman: You can’t call me to order until I am finished and I’m not finished.

Mr. Chairman: I have said that he is repeating and I will so rule.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: Well, you may rule but Tm continuing. What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we’ll see.

Mr. Shulman: I am making an absolute point here which I haven’t been allowed to complete because you keep interrupting.

Mr. Renwick: Very upsetting that you let the other member interrupt.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I’ve been sitting in the House for the whole debate just as you have.

Mr. Shulman: You let him interrupt me and I’m answering him.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member has been repeating himself.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: I’m not repeating myself now. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox has made a point about section 12. I’m telling him he is in error, that that is not what we were discussing.

Mr. Chairman: That’s not your position. It is not your job to do that. Your job is to discuss section 18 and not be repetitive.

Mr. Shulman: Well, may I ask a question of you, Mr. Chairman? Why do you allow the member for Prince Edward-Lennox to correct me and I can’t correct him?

Mr. Lawlor: That’s perfectly right.

Mr. Shulman: I mean what kind of nutty rules have you got around here?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Lawlor: If a reasonably bright Tory like him doesn’t understand what we are saying then what should we do with the rest of them?

Mr. Chairman: I understood very well.

Mr. Shulman: Now, Mr. Chairman, to come back to where I was before you interrupted me: I was asking the minister a specific question about a specific potential problem and I hadn’t received an answer and that is why I am repeating myself. I shall continue to repeat myself until I get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Does the minister have an answer?

An hon. member: Let’s have the vote.

Mr. Shulman: The minister has an answer and if I can repeat the question --

Mr. Chairman: I understand the answer is repetitive as well.

Mr. Shulman: Well, the answer can’t be repetitive if I haven’t heard it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the member doesn’t like the section he may vote against it.

Mr. Shulman: I’m going to do more than vote against it; I am going to speak against it. That is exactly what I am doing now. I attempted to say my piece and the sooner you stop interrupting me the sooner I will say it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If it is new material -- will the member be seated please?

Mr. Shulman: No.

Mr. Chairman: You are making a mockery of the House.

Mr. MacDonald: You are making a mockery of the House, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shulman: Now may I speak on the section?

Mr. Chairman: Now just a moment. Order, please.

Mr. Shulman: I’m going to speak on this section and you are not going to shut me up.

Mr. MacDonald: You lower the boom when it serves your party’s purpose.

Mr. Shulman: I am not repeating myself. I have asked a question and I want an answer.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is a very clear order against repetition in the House. Now, we have heard the member --

Mr. MacDonald: And you enforce it when it serves your party’s purpose.

Mr. Chairman: -- three or four times already. If it is something different I would be pleased to hear it.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: Okay. Now, what is different is, I didn’t get an answer. I’m going to repeat my question and it is repetitive because I didn’t get an answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: Okay. Now, to commence again. And if the minister will answer me then we will go on to a separate point. The question I have is this --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as there is a potential for future abuse, would the minister be willing to write in --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is not fair to the other members of the House.

An hon. member: Allan, stop talking.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That question has been asked before and the minister has answered it.

Mr. Shulman: I agree it has been asked before but it hasn’t been answered.

Mr. Chairman: The minister may answer it as he sees fit.

Mr. Shulman: Well, will you let me finish it first of all?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I have heard it before.

Mr. Shulman: Well, you may have heard it before. We have all heard it before but I haven’t got an answer. Now, if I say it again perhaps --

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have a different answer?

Mr. Shulman: Wait a minute! I didn’t finish it yet. Don’t answer it until I finish it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have ruled the member out of order.

Mr. Shulman: Okay, you rule me out of order. Now, I am going to ask my question.

Mr. Chairman: I have ruled the member out of order.

Mr. Shulman: Well, all right, I’m out of order but I am still going to ask my question.

Mr. Chairman: You may challenge my ruling but I’ve ruled you out of order.

Mr. Shulman: I’m not challenging your ruling. I’m just going to ask my question.

Mr. Chairman: I have ruled him out of order.

Mr. Shulman: Okay, I’m out of order. Now, my question is --

Mr. Chairman: No. Order, please; order, please.

An hon. member: We’re all against you; sit down.

Mr. Chairman: You are being repetitive with that question and are out of order.

Mr. Shulman: As I understand the rules, I may ask a question 10,000 times until I get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: No; that is repetitive.

Mr. Shulman: Well, show me what rule says that I can’t repeat the question until I get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: If the member would sit down I’ll point it out to him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: Let the minister answer the question.

An hon. member: He has answered it several times.

Mr. Renwick: That is not so, he hasn’t answered it at all.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member take his seat.

Order No. 16(a), subsection 3 says: “Persists in needless” -- and it starts off above: “In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he ... ” and down to subsection 3 “ ... persists in needless repetition or raises matters which have been decided during the current session.”

Mr. Shulman: It is not needless if you don’t get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: Persists in repetition --

Mr. Shulman: Not repetition; needless repetition, needless repetition. It is obviously not needless if you don’t get an answer.

Mr. Chairman: I rule it was needless. Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The needless portion is obviously the most important part. If a member asks a question for which an answer --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member is debating the chairman s ruling.

Mr. Deans: No, I’m not debating your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, you are.

Mr. Deans: I’m asking you to listen to me for one moment; and you can then say that I am wrong if you so desire, that is your prerogative. I don’t have to agree with you or you with me, but what I am suggesting to you is this: That the interpretation of “needless repetition” is that if a member were to ask a question for which an answer was given and he was dissatisfied with the answer and continued to ask the question, that may well be considered --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: By whose judgement?

Mr. Deans: By his judgement, if he were --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: By whose judgement?

Mr. Deans: Would you listen for a moment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ve been listening for two hours --

Mr. Deans: Not to me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and I’ve heard the same questions.

Mr. Deans: If the member was dissatisfied and continued to ask the question over and over again, and the minister said that was the only answer he was capable of giving, then that would be needless repetition. But if the member asks a question for which no answer is forthcoming, then surely he is entitled to ask that question until such time as an answer is given?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s chicanery and circumlocution.

Mr. Chairman: No, that is not the interpretation I place on the rules.

Shall section 18 stand as part of the bill?

Some hon. members: No, no.

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

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, can I bring to your attention rule 16(a)(1)? The member has mentioned that he had been misunderstood, and this rule applies in this particular case; if he feels he’s been misunderstood he can give an explanation. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the member for High Park has made a comment about the fact that he was misunderstood by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and he was trying to give an explanation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wasn’t misunderstood. We understood him. stood, Mr. Chairman. That’s why I brought out this point. I’m being misunderstood.

Mr. Chairman: We are debating section 18.

Mr. Roy: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I think standing order 16(a)(1) is certainly apropos to this debate. If I might make certain comments on the bill, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that section 18 is in a sense inconsistent. First of all, you start off by saying that certain information is privileged --

Mr. Stokes: Have you had a chance to read it?

Mr. Roy: Well, sure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why don’t you read it over first?

Mr. Roy: No, never mind, just listen. I’ve read it. Have you read it?

Mr. Stokes: No, I haven’t.

Mr. Roy: Well, don’t comment then.

Mr. Stokes: I’ve been listening to the comments of your colleague --

Mr. Roy: You haven’t read it.

Mr. Stokes: -- and you agreed with everything he said.

Mr. Roy: He’s being provocative. He hasn’t even read the thing, and he’s interrupting me. That’s out of order. That’s clearly out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: In any event, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the section appears to be inconsistent in the sense that you make the first part of it privileged, which we agree with.

My colleague has mentioned sections 18(1)(a) and (b), and we agree with this particular position. But from privileged information which is not to be divulged, you go on in subsection 6 and leave the door wide open -- and, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s important that I read part of this subsection to make my point.

Mr. Renwick: I think it is.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: You are reversing the position of your party.

Mr. Roy: I’m not at all. No, I said I agreed -- you are not listening. I’m being misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. That’s why I brought out this point. I’m being misunderstood.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s not unusual.

An hon. member: We all are.

Mr. Roy: I wish you would bring him to order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacDonald: We get the point very quickly. The Liberals are in reverse once again.

Mr. Roy: In any event, I have explained fully, and I shall repeat myself, Mr. Chairman, because clearly I have been misunderstood --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I said that we agreed with the first part of sections 18(1)(a) and (b), which meant that this information, was privileged. I went on to say that the government, having taken this position, went on in sections 18(6)(a) and (b) to open the door wide and make this information available to every government department right across Canada.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is basically this --

Mr. Renwick: It has nothing to do with information.

Mr. Roy: The section reads in part:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the minister may permit information or a copy of any book, record, writing, return or other document obtained by him ... be given to a minister of the government of Canada or any officer or employee employed under a minister of the government of Canada [and then goes on to say] a minister of the government of any province of Canada or officers or employee employed under that minister -- ”

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me --

Mr. Renwick: But only if the other guy will give him information.

Mr. Roy: No, no. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me ludicrous. If the minister is generally following taxing legislation, surely that is not permissible under the Income Tax Act and you are not following that type of provision --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You fellows have been voting for the same thing in other tax bills for years.

Mr. Renwick: We have not. We have objected each and every time.

Mr. Roy: -- because, as I understand the Income Tax Act, the information of the Department of National Revenue often is privileged even to other departments of the government.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that if ever there was a situation where abuse is open between various government departments or even various governments, whether they be provincial or federal, it is in this instance, where this information may be exchanged -- and it doesn’t even have to be requested, Mr. Chairman. That’s what frightens me about this particular section. It doesn’t even have to be requested. It can be forwarded to any federal government, or it can be forwarded to any provincial government department, or in fact, to any federal or provincial officer within these departments.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: Your colleague from Waterloo North was saying the very opposite.

Mr. Roy: No, no.

Mr. MacDonald: Sure he was.

Mr. Roy: I give you credit for being more intelligent than that. Surely you can see the distinction in the argument.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: No, no, no. You haven’t understood my position. We are going to vote against you. On principle we always vote against you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: We justify it later; we vote against you, then we justify it later.

But, Mr. Chairman, doesn’t it frighten the minister that this information would be available to all federal and provincial government departments, in any province, and any officer of any department? I say, Mr. Chairman, that at least what the minister should have in this particular section is that this information be available only upon request; that it should not be wide open as it is now.

Mr. Renwick: That would be nice.

Mr. Roy: If some provincial civil servant is not pleased, he just takes his information and forwards it off to the income tax department.

Mr. Renwick: RSVP.

Mr. Roy: That is highly unfair, Mr. Chairman. It’s open to all sorts of abuse. I say that we are greatly concerned on this side of the House about the wide open provisions of section 18, subsection 6. We feel that if you are looking at a precedent in relation to the Income Tax Act, they don’t have such a provision and this is open to abuse.

Mr. MacDonald: You thought you had them on your side, eh?

Mr. Roy: This is wide open to abuse. We say that your position, in a sense, is inconsistent when you say it’s privileged here, but at the other end it’s wide open to any government in this country or to any civil servant in this country. We say, Mr. Chairman, that that is open to abuse and we are greatly concerned about that section.

Mr. Deans: Only you will vote for it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I have just one simple question to ask, if I may. At the beginning of this argument when this whole nonsense began an hour and a half ago, I expressed some dismay at the fact that you would do things we wouldn’t know about and your reply at that time was not to worry, that every time you made an order we would know about it.

Just five minutes ago, when I asked exactly the same question, you said no, we mustn’t know about it, because a man’s tax is his own personal business and we mustn’t interfere.

The question I’m asking is, do we believe the Arthur Meen of 8:05 or do we believe the Arthur Meen of 9:25? Which answer did you mean?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, of course it depends on the subject matter under discussion. When we are talking about the reduction of an assessment or the increase of an assessment, a reassessment of any sort, then of course it is privileged against production. In the case of these other matters, of course, I was making reference to section 22, subsection 2, which would be an order in council, and of course that is public.

Mr. Shulman: What other matters? The question I asked him originally was, if you reduce someone’s tax, and I specifically mentioned a time -- section 8, subsection 4, and Hansard will show it, and I’m going to dig it out and quote it back in some other forum for him if we don’t settle it tonight -- but Hansard will show I asked a specific question, referred to that specific section, and he replied that in every case there would be an order and we would know about it. Now he is saying exactly the opposite. Can you give me an example of a case where we would know about it?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, not under that section but under section 22, subsection 2, which, in subsection (a) of subsection 2 deals with exemption from tax and reduction of tax.

Mr. Shulman: Those are classes.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, not necessarily. Exemption from tax of any designated land or class of designated land. That kind of exemption would be by order in council.

Mr. Shulman: But that’s not what the problem is.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If the problem is a matter of the taxpayer’s tax that’s exigible in some fashion or other in some amount, we might very well have established a figure. He may have paid it under protest. By the time we have done further review on the matter and determined that he was over-assessed -- we might very well determine that he was under-assessed -- but in any event, the reassessment would issue under section 8. That kind of thing is certainly a privileged matter with the taxpayer and is not something that should be subject to public scrutiny.

Mr. Shulman: How can the minister say that? Would the minister not agree --

Mr. Roy: But he is going holus’-bolus the other way, though, if they give it to any government department or any government in this country.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now I am repeating myself.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister not agree with me that there is a difference between this Act and the Income Tax Act in that the matters --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure is.

Mr. Shulman: -- being treated in this Act --

Hon. Mr. Meen: This is not a tax on income, I’ll tell you that.

Mr. Shulman: Well, this is a tax on God knows what. Would the minister not agree with me that inasmuch as this is a tax on specific known items, that is the cost of certain lands --

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is a tax on profits.

Mr. Shulman: -- the profits on certain items which are public knowledge, that in order to prevent abuse the tax should be the same on everybody? I mean, one speculator shouldn’t get a different rate than another speculator, surely. Yet you have assigned yourself the power, in secret -- that’s the part that bothers me. I don’t mind your keeping the discretion to change it, but what does bother me is the fact that you insist on keeping it secret. If you were to say, “Look, we are not giving out any information under this Act for this normal routine activity when we make a special exemption for someone.” Surely you must agree with me that that must be public knowledge, otherwise sooner or later you are going to have a scandal that is going to curl your hair.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other question on section 18?

Mr. Roy: Are you going to answer my comments about section 18, subsection 6, about our concern on the fact that information should only be given to other government departments or other governments?

Hon. Mr. Meen: If the hon. member cares to look at the latter part of subsection 6, he will notice that with respect to the government of Canada this applies only if the government of Canada or of the province is in a position to offer similar information. If the government of Canada is not in a position to offer similar information, then it would not be available to them.

It would not be made available to them automatically, I might add, but only on request and if they are in a position to make similar information available to us on a reciprocal basis. I think the hon. member for Ottawa East ought to read the whole of the subsection.

Mr. Renwick: Reciprocity based on exchange of information about private citizens is a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think the one aspect which my colleague the hon. member for High Park has been emphasizing is that the very secrecy provisions which you have designed so carefully in this statute, and which we have indicated to you we consider both unnecessary and superfluous, are designed to cloak the performance by your ministry of its obligations with respect to this tax. This is the way in which the public will never know whether the ministry has performed its obligations.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that is repetition through vicarious means.

An hon. member: He is an expert at it.

Mr. Renwick: None of the information will ever become public which is required to be known as to whether or not this tax has achieved the purpose which the provincial Treasurer originally stated when he presented his budget on April 9 last. The purpose he gave was that he doesn’t want to raise tax money by this particular tax, but that all he wants to do is to reduce the price of land or stabilize the price of land.

To the extent that you do not provide the information to the public, to the extent that you provide a cloak of secrecy around the operations of your ministry with respect to this tax, then to that extent the public will never know whether you have done what you said you were going to do. As my colleague from High Park has said, of course, we also will never know when you pick and) choose between those who are going to have the benefit of the immense discretions which we are going to come to in a later section in the bill.

All I can say to the Chairman is that up until now we nave dealt with each of these sections, subsection by subsection. I assume that the Chairman is going to adhere to that proposition and that he is now going to call each of the subsections for a vote.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No way; we have been dealing with them all.

Mr. Renwick: That is my understanding of the way in which we have dealt until tonight.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, on that point, at the request of the hon. member for Riverdale himself at the opening of this debate shortly after 8 o’clock, he said he wanted to range over the whole of the subject and the Chairman at the time gave him that permission; so we are dealing with the whole of section 18.

Mr. Chairman: If I might address myself to the member for Riverdale, when I took over from the sitting Chairman he said that we were dealing with the entire section.

Mr. Renwick: I realize he would. That is what my colleague the member for York South meant when he said that the rules are applied by the Chairman of this committee in a partisan sense when it serves his purpose.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is unfair.

Mr. Renwick: Well, let’s not fool around. Each of these subsections has been dealt with on the basis of the overall requirements of the section in order that we understand it.

Each and every section of the bill was called as a specific subsection for vote. There is no basis, other than a partisan ruling handed on to you by the former chairman, for what you are now trying to do. The remarks of the minister are specious and he knows it.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on this point if I might --

Mr. Renwick: He’s upset; the minister is upset. When he is engaged in --

Mr. Chairman: There is one member on the floor --

Mr. Renwick: We want to upset him. We want to get you very disturbed --

Hon. Mr. Meen: You are not doing very well at it.

Mr. Renwick: We certainly are.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought we were doing almost too well.

Mr. Renwick: We certainly are. You have been engaged in a Freudian defensive operation all evening.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): He is cool and collected.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on this point, I think it’s significant to point out that the section contains two entirely different principles. One deals with the confidentiality of tax information as it relates to public disclosure of that; the last sections deal with the non-confidentiality of that information as it relates to other governments and other departments of the same government. I think that at least those two items have to be dealt with separately.

Mr. Chairman: I have listened to much of the discussion and it seems to have covered the whole section, but I am prepared to put them individually.

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of order, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

As you are well aware, since you have attended this House somewhat faithfully throughout the course of this whole debate, in section after section the subsections have had to be taken singly, one by one, and dealt with accordingly. We have done it all the way through this bill and now there’s a sudden reversal of form. I would ask you to stick to the routine, to what has been laid down by precedent in the balance of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: As I say, I am prepared to do it that way, but I understood from the Chairman that it was at the request of a member of the opposition that the entire section should be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Indeed, it was. Mr. Chairman, on that point --

Mr. Roy: Accept the ruling, eh?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Challenge the ruling if you like. It’s more difficult to debate an entire section, across the whole of the section, when it is divided up into subsections; but it was the member for Riverdale himself who suggested that we do this, and the Chairman agreed. Everybody else has followed that practice.

Mr. Renwick: All we wanted to do was to lay before you the total folly of the whole section. That is all. Because we are going to vote against you.

Hon. Mr. Meen: With respect, sir, I suggest it would be preposterous now to have votes on any and every subsection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think we should get all the lawyers out of this debate.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, may I make --

Mr. Chairman: Yes, you may come back to your point. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister’s answer to my question in relation to section 18, subsection (6) was terrible; it was a terrible answer. What he was saying to me basically is this: There is nothing wrong with this because we expect the other provinces and the government of Canada to do the same thing as we are doing and exchange information with us. That’s what you said to me. What land of validity does that give to your argument?

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s not what I said.

Mr. Roy: That’s what you said.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s not what I said.

Mr. Roy: It’s what you said. You said if they exchanged information with us --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Read Hansard.

Mr. Lawlor: He will say anything that comes into his head.

Mr. Roy: That’s terrible. As a lawyer and as a minister surely you should have gained experience on this bill. You have been on it for two or three weeks now. You should give me better answers than that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Where have you been though?

Mr. Roy: I have been on the Health Disciplines Act. You should come down there and find out how an able minister is able to run a bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Holy cow! What an example.

Mr. Roy: You should see how the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) does it.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He doesn’t get his way all the time either.

Mr. Roy: He’s not nearly as mean as you.

Mr. Chairman: The debate is degenerating here.

Mr. Roy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry about that one.

The point I want to make to the minister is basically this. You said, as I understood your answer -- you can get up under standing order 16(l)(a) if you have been misunderstood, you can correct me -- in any event what you said to me is that if other government departments or other levels of government or other provincial governments or the federal government is prepared to exchange information-reciprocal arrangement is what you said -- that’s the only time we will exchange this information. What kind of validity does that give to the argument?

We are saying basically that it is dangerous for an officer of this particular government, of your ministry, to have the right -- not upon request but just have the right -- to exchange this information. He can send it to the Province of Saskatchewan or the Province of British Columbia or wherever; he can send it to some individual within a ministry which has something to do with tax or duty. Of course that could be the sales tax: that could be all forms of taxation. He could send it to them not upon request but just send it.

We say that is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, because it opens the door wide. What you are saying -- and it borders on being specious -- is that it’s okay because if they do the same thing it’s going to be okay.

Mr. Chairman, we feel this is not okay. We feel that unless the minister gives us a better answer than that, it should be upon request.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You have voted that way for years on tax bills.

Mr. Roy: No. We feel that tax information should be secret and should not be freely exchanged. You say in the first part it’s privileged and then you go on to open the door wide.

It’s terrible. You don’t understand it. It’s funny; after all this time here you are getting to be an old man and you still don’t understand what I am trying to say. It’s terrible.

Mr. Chairman: To the members of the committee, is there any more discussion --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, my point to the minister is simply this. Surely there has to be a better reason than reciprocity for having this type of section? That type of information is not allowed under the Income Tax Act. You can’t trade income tax information and the federal government can’t exchange income tax information with other departments. What are you talking about? It’s terrible.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any more discussion in regard to section 18? I said I will take the votes on the subsections separately, but is there any more discussion on the entire section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the ecumenical spirit in which the debate has been conducted this evening, I would certainly suggest it would be possible to group items 1 and 2, item 3, then item 4 and then items 5 and 6. We would have to ring the bells, I think, only three or four times.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Do you see the point?

Mr. Chairman: Let’s take them one at a time.

All those in favour of section 18, subsection 1, please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Do you want to stack this?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, we’ll stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 2, all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Do we agree to stack this?

On subsection 3, all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

On subsection 4, all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

May we stack subsection 4?

Mr. Renwick: I think it’s about time we rang the bells.

Mr. Chairman: I’m making pretty good progress as a neophyte chairman, let me go on with it.

On subsection 5, all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

May we stack that one?

On subsection 6, all those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

We have all of them stacked except subsection 3, and I have put my initials beside it as carried.

Section 19.

Mr. Renwick: No. We are only stacking for the purpose of calling the vote at the end of the section.

Mr. Chairman: In the matter of section 18, subsection 3 had been agreed to, but the other subsections have been stacked.

The committee divided on subsection 1 of section 18, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 61; the “nays” are 8.

Subsection 1 of section 18 agreed to.

The committee divided on subsection 2 of section 18 which was approved on the same vote.

Subsection 2 of section 18 agreed to.

The committee divided on subsection 4 of section 18 which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 47, the “nays” are 22.

Subsection 4 of section 18 agreed to.

The committee divided on subsection 5 of section 18 which was approved on the same vote.

Subsection 5 of section 18 agreed to.

The committee divided on subsection 6 of section 18 which was approved on the same vote.

Subsection 6 of section 18 agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to:

On section 19.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Section 19. The minister has an amendment to section 19.

Mr. Renwick: I would suggest the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, did I lose you somewhere? Did you take care of subsection 3?

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 3 was carried before.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The House leader is going to adjourn the House.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, I would like to move that the House sit beyond the hour of 10:30.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Winkler moves that the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of 10:30.

Some hon. members: No way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chairman, I think it’s important --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Where is your leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon)?

Mr. Deacon: -- and I would ask the House leader to consider the fact that good progress has been made in this bill tonight, and we do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the normal hour of sitting. I would ask the House leader to reconsider and to withdraw that motion, because I think that we have had enough for this time. Can we please have his co-operation? I can assure the House leader that we will do everything to frustrate him if he continues to do this.

Mr. Kennedy: We have a lot of work to do.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Roy: Well play along with you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for High Park was on his feet first.

Mr. Shulman: I want to speak to the motion.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is statesmanship.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the member for --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member for High Park can sit down.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I recognize the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding, and I believe it to be correct --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Deans: -- that a motion for the House to sit beyond the hour of 10:30 must be made with the Speaker in the chair and cannot be made by the committee.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Deans: I would like to suggest that such a motion would have to be made after the motion that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is ample precedent of it being done previously.

Mr. Deans: There is no precedent.

Mr. Renwick: There is no precedent.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, there is.

Mr. Deans: There is no precedent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I have been in the chair when the motion has been placed and carried.

Mr. Renwick: That is not true.

Mr. Deans: I challenge that because that cannot be so.

Mr. Bullbrook: Don’t challenge it.

Mr. Deans: I ask you to cite the precedent.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: It is impossible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The precedent is as I cited it.

Mr. Deans: I ask you to cite the precedent. I refer you to page 2 of standing orders. It says that --

Mr. Kennedy: How did you happen to have that there?

Mr. Deans: How do I happen to have it here? I have it here all the time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: It says: “The Speaker shall” --

I read to you from section 3 --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t give us the order business. Come on, listen.

Mr. MacDonald: He doesn’t want to be confused by standing orders.

Mr. Deans: I’ll read to you from section 3, if I may, page 2 of the standing orders of the House. It says:

“If at 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 p.m. and the House will continue until 10:30 p.m. unless otherwise ordered by government motion.”

The government motion to extend must be made when the Speaker is in the chair, because it says: “The Speaker shall leave the chair at 10:30.”

Mr. Renwick: That is right, exactly.

Mr. Deans: There can be no precedent.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s not fool around with the rules anymore.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The rules of the House apply in committee and there has been precedent. I distinctly recall.

Mr. Renwick: There is no precedent for it.

Mr. Stokes: It being 10:30 of the clock I move we adjourn.

Mr. Chairman: No, we can’t --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is not debatable.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We have another motion before the House.

Mr. Shulman: It is 10:30. I want to speak to the motion.

An hon. member: There’s no debate.

Mr. Shulman: What do you mean there’s no debate? How can there be no bloody debate?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I recognize the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the reason I wished to speak to this motion is we must have co-operation; the House leader has said on a number of occasions we must have co-operation in this House. At 3 o’clock this afternoon, members of this party were informed by Hansard that we were going to be sitting late tonight. So that we could make our plans, I approached the House leader and asked him if this was true, and he said that it was not true. I asked him if he was going to change his mind would he let me know, and he said he would. What kind of co-operation is this? How do you expect any co-operation from us?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Give it to them.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Shulman: Now, I am not through. You sit down until I am finished. I am not through yet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Shulman: Sit down!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for High Park still has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes us to continue to co-operate -- and there are many occasions on which he needs our co-operation -- I would suggest to him most politely that the tactics he has used today are not likely to get that co-operation.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has said is, in part, quite so. As a matter of fact, I said to the hon. member that if the minister whose bill is before the House wished to sit past 10:30 that would be his prerogative. He has said that to me and I have moved the motion.

Mr. Shulman: That is not what you said.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s exactly the way it was and that’s the way it happened.

Mr. Shulman: Come off it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now, on the other hand, when I listen to whatever his position is there, and he is going to frustrate --

Mr. Reid: You wouldn’t know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- every move, I can assure him --

Mr. MacDonald: You are breaking the rules of the House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- that that’s precisely what I expect of him, that’s what I expect of him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: But inasmuch as I have consulted --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have consulted the rules in regard to this motion, I find it’s in order and I have moved the motion.

Mr. Renwick: You find it is in order? Well, isn’t that great!

Mr. Chairman: I place the motion. Those in favour --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member has spoken to the motion, I believe.

Mr. Deacon: I can still speak again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the minister --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, did you or did you not hear, as I heard, a motion to adjourn, and if you did --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Never mind saying “order please”, just give me one moment I asked you a question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I asked you a question. Did you not hear a motion to adjourn? If you did, please tell me that you did hear it. If you did not, tell me that you did not hear it, because my colleague from Thunder Bay made a motion to adjourn, and if there is a motion to adjourn there is no more debate.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Yes, I heard the motion but there is already a motion before the House, properly placed, at present.

Mr. Bullbrook: A motion to adjourn supersedes any other motion.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would you please, would you please --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: A motion to adjourn supersedes any other motion. Now would you please put that motion to us now?

Mr. Chairman: No. Order, please. The proper procedure is for us to dispose of the first motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Reid: Read the rules.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you have that advice from the clerk?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I could talk for just a moment, if you look at standing order 31(a), you’ll see: “A motion to adjourn the House or the debate is in order any time after the orders of the day.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Right. So put that to us.

Mr. Roy: We think it’s important to follow precedent around here.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is quite in order. If the Speaker is in the chair, that is correct.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the House leader saying that the rules that apply to the Speaker do not apply in committee? Is that what you are saying?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Because that is the advice that the Chairman just gave us a moment ago.

Mr. MacDonald: You are trying to frustrate the rules of the House and you are getting nowhere.

Mr. Shulman: You are cutting your own throat.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: You are arrogant.

Mr. Bullbrook: You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shulman: You are trying to pervert the rules of the House and you don’t understand the rules. The House leader has made a classic error tonight, one you won’t forget for a long, long time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Thunder Bays motion was to adjourn the House --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Well, we can’t adjourn the House from the committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: All right, fine. It’s your decision, and we’ll abide by it.

An hon. member: But --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I might ask you --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion before us then is to continue sitting beyond 10:30. Those in favour --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: That motion cannot be put.

Mr. Deans: I contend, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. Good: I’d like to speak to the motion to sit beyond 10:30.

Mr. Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If it is not possible to move adjournment of the House in the committee --

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: -- it is equally not possible to move that the House sit beyond the normal hours in committee.

Mr. MacDonald: Hear, hear. Now there’s a bit of logic.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I contend, sir, that if it isn’t possible for us to adjourn this House in committee, we can’t decide in committee that the House will sit beyond 10:30.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Therefore, since on my point of order I claim that that be so, if you agree with me, I would move the committee rise and report.

Mr. Bullbrook: The House leader has done it again, in his own inimitable fashion.

Mr. Shulman: Even the Globe will write him up this time.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, speaking on whatever is before the House --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: A point of order --

Mr. Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The point of order --

Mr. Kennedy: All right. I’m speaking to the point of order.

Interjections by Hon. members.

Mr. Kennedy: The applicable standing order, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is No. 28(e) --

Mr. Renwick: That is the one we misunderstood.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let’s have a look at it.

Mr. Kennedy: It reads: “When the House continues to sit past 10:30 o’clock, p.m., on government motion as provided in standing order 3, the adjournment proceedings under this standing order should be suspended.”

Now, standing order 3 --

Mr. Deans: You are talking about the wrong thing.

Mr. Kennedy: -- states: “The House will continue until 10:30 o’clock, p.m., unless otherwise ordered by government motion.” A government motion is before the assembly here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s as clear as a bell.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, it’s as clear as a bell, and I suggest we proceed.

An hon. member: That’s really confusion.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the ultimate confusion, standing order 28 deals with a particular procedure before the House --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We like No. 26. Which number do you like?

Mr. Deans: It deals with something called proceedings on adjournment.

Mr. Renwick: We like 1(a).

Mr. Deans: It refers directly to the matter of debate on a question that has not been satisfactorily answered. It has no application to what we are discussing here right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Big deal, big deal.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: May I have a ruling?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. The appropriate motion --

Mr. Good: I wish to speak to the motion.

Mr. Chairman: Which one?

Mr. Good: There can be only one motion before the House. I’d like to speak to the motion to sit beyond 10:30. I think that’s my privilege.

Mr. Deans: I’ve asked for a ruling on my motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I am advised that the motion which has precedence is the one to rise and report. Mr. Deans moved that the committee rise and report.

Those in favour of Mr. Dean’s motion will please rise.

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

Mr. Chairman: No, there is no debate --

An hon. member: You are out of order.

Mr. Chairman: No, there is no point of order on that.

Mr. Shulman: Let him place his point of order first.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Yes?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, before you put that motion, I would ask you to read the standing orders of the Legislature.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: I was fortunate or unfortunate to be a member of that select committee that arrived at the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this particular circumstance was never envisioned by the members of that committee.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: No. Wait, Mr. Chairman --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, if you will read the standing orders very carefully, you will see that a motion to adjourn the House in regard to the standing orders is particularly in order. We don’t want to do that, but we have had no motion and no prior consideration from the government side in regard to continuing the debate on Bill 25. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, there is no precedent that we should continue in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If that doesn’t clear things up, nothing will.

Mr. Reid: The parliamentary procedure is purely and simply laid down in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Standing Orders and there’s nothing in those orders that provides for this particular contingency.

Mr. Roy: Right on!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the member repeat that?

Mr. Reid: I would say most respectfully to you, Mr. Chairman, that the motion is out of order. This bill is out of order after 10:30. We should adjourn the House and we should continue with the usual orders in the next sitting of the Legislature. And that is what we are trying to do here tonight in the Legislature.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Keep talking.

Mr. Reid: I would say to you most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that the next time this committee should sit is after the question period on Thursday as the committee of whole House, as constituted by the standing orders of the legislative assembly of Ontario. To do less or even more than that is an abrogation of the rules of the Ontario Legislature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: I would say further, Mr. Chairman, that I think that it is your duty to adjourn.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to page 8 and page 9 of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Standing Orders, and I would ask you to adjourn the debate on this bill and ask that the committee rise and report and that we continue this debate on the Thursday afternoon as constituted by standing orders in this Legislature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate once more that I did consult. I know that the motion is in order. I know that it can be moved at this stage of debate. I’m also aware of the fact that the rules are clear in regard to government motions, despite what any opposition member wanted to do --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Whom did you consult with?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- and I have moved the motion that we sit beyond the hour of 10:30.

Mr. Reid: The minister doesn’t care about the democratic system.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I think we have had considerable debate on whether this is in order or not. I would urge the House leader to consider, with the progress that has been made today on the bill, to set it aside until Thursday as it is more appropriate. I think, sir, you have had a very trying time and it would be very good if you would do that.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, that’s the first voice of reason that has come across the floor this evening. Inasmuch as our report is reasonably good, I am prepared to accept the idea --

Mr. Shulman: The minister has to be coaxed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- that maybe we should have a limited debate. If they would agree, we could set some hour at which we could adjourn.

Mr. Shulman: At 10:30.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: I move, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: A partial retreat isn’t enough -- all the way back.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I rule that the motion before us is Mr. Deans’ motion to rise and report. I place the motion.

Those in favour of Mr. Deans’ motion will please rise.

Those in opposed will please rise.

Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 22; the “nays” 47.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

Mr. Deans: Point of order, Mr. Chairman; I am sorry to raise this with you really, but the vote was improperly taken.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Deans: It was impossible to bring it to your attention during the time it was being taken, because that is out of order.

Mr. Chairman: We will take it again, if you wish.

Mr. Deans: I now bring it to your attention that if you are going to have a standing vote it requires that there be a division bell.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: We will place the motion more properly. I noticed a few seconds after I started that -- order, please.

Mr. Reid: The bell should have been rung.

Mr. Shulman: You don’t ask people to rise anyway. Ask who is in favour and who is against. Let me explain it to you.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Deans’ motion will please say “aye”.

Those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Now, we’ll have a vote.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

An hon. member: Ring the bell. You are going to ring them for a long, long time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion as moved by Mr. Deans, was that the committee rise and report.

The committee divided on Mr. Deans’ motion to rise and report, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 20 and the “nays” are 43.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

We have before us then, Mr. Winkler’s motion to sit beyond the normal hour of 10:30. Shall this motion carry?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the member for Wellington South.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the House leader, in view of the experience that we have enjoyed tonight, that we should call an adjournment at five minutes after 12, in three minutes from now.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: May I hear that again?

Mr. Worton: Let’s adjourn at five minutes after 12. That will be enough time to get everything in order and get out of here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I can’t accept that suggestion at this hour.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, since it is obvious that we can’t get that degree of co-operation --

Mr. Lawlor: They had better get rid of the House leader.

Mr. Deans: -- I want to suggest to you, sir, that the committee of the whole House does not have, under any rule, the power to extend the hours of sitting of the House.

Mr. Kennedy: The power is not to extend.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest to you that if this committee is permitted to pass a motion simply on the strength of the government members being larger in number than those of the opposition, then the rules --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Why not?

Mr. Lawlor: Their bulk, their weight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Stop being so self-righteous.

Mr. Renwick: You people are in trouble.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I say to you that if the committee is to be permitted to vote to extend the hours of sitting of the House on the strength of the government having more members than the opposition, then every single rule in this book is worthless. Because it means that at any time the government can move to alter any rule to satisfy itself or its own whims.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like waiting for you for an hour and a half. Is that the way we are riding roughshod over you?

An hon. member: Of course we can.

Mr. Deans: Now the rules were made by an all-party committee, and they were made because they appeared to offer fair guidelines for the operations of this House.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): And you just screwed them up for an hour and a half.

Mr. Deans: If in fact there is to be a precedent set, then I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, there are only two ways in which a legitimate precedent to the rules can be set, and both of those ways require that the Speaker be in the chair. To begin with, it is not legal for a committee to alter the rules, because the rules apply to the Legislature; the committee gets its power from the Legislature and must abide by the legislative rules.

If there’s to be a change in the rules then that change can only be brought about in one of two ways, either by the unanimous consent of the House to change the rules or by a ruling of the Speaker which is either unchallenged and accepted or challenged and voted upon.

At this point we are being asked in this committee to alter the rules of the House, not only the rules of the committee but the rules of the House, and to extend the sittings of the House beyond those which are legally permitted within the standing orders. I suggest to you, sir, that this cannot be done. If there are precedents and if they are considered by you to be precedents, they are invalid. They are invalid for this reason, that they dealt not with a change in the rules but rather with a particular situation of that time.

At this point, at 12:07, we are being asked --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): You will be another hour and a half next time.

Mr. Deans: I have got a lot of time. I am not going to be dissuaded because the point is far too important.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The rules of the Legislature, sir, are far too important to be run over roughshod. They are far too important. I want to bring to your attention since it’s being pointed out to you by some members who have not been recognized, that we have been sitting around here for an hour and a half. I want to point out to you that at the government’s instigation in times gone by, we have sat here for two hours, 2½ hours, and on one occasion for four hours and 35 minutes while we waited for the government to find its members to win a vote.

An hon. member: Sit down. You are a loser and you know it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: May I bring this to a conclusion please?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words, if I may, on this motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would like to rule on the hon. member for Wentworth’s motion.

Mr. Reid: No, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think I have the opportunity to say my piece as regards the motion of the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member will sit down when I call order.

Mr. Shulman: He is allowed to speak to the motion.

Mr. Chairman: We are not at this particular moment debating the motion which the member mentioned.

I would like to say this. I ruled previously that we were in order. At this moment, I stick to that. It’s quite evident that the rules don’t adequately cover this situation, and ruling as I ruled before, because of precedent --

Mr. Renwick: The rules adequately cover it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s not have the rationalization; the rules are clear. The rules are clear and you know it.

Mr. Chairman: Just let me finish.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: The rules are always clear.

Mr. Chairman: I shall refer this to Mr. Speaker and ask for a ruling from him on this matter.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, that is very wise.

Mr. Chairman: And hopefully --

Mr. Deans: Will that be done now?

Mr. Chairman: No, I can’t do that tonight. I will do that tomorrow.

Mr. Foulds: We cannot proceed against the rules of the House and ask for a ruling tomorrow.

Mr. Reid: Can I ask --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have ruled.

Mr. Reid: I feel I have the right to speak on the motion put by the hon. member for Wentworth. Mr. Chairman, the House leader for the Conservative Party put a motion and I think that I should be entitled to speak to it.

Mr. Chairman: I haven’t ruled the member out of order on that.

Mr. Reid: I am sorry. Did you say his motion was not in order?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the member take his seat?

Mr. Reid: Did you say that his motion was not in order?

Mr. Chairman: If the member would just cease his talking, I will make it clear.

Mr. Deans: I want to hear what you said.

Mr. Chairman: I said I have ruled on the matter we were discussing earlier. At the moment, my ruling stays the same.

Mr. Bullbrook: Please tell me about your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: The ruling is that the motion to sit beyond 10:30 is in order in committee of the whole House. I have ruled that; but as I say, I undertake to take it up with Mr. Speaker, who may make it more definitive one way or the other.

Mr. Shulman: You have to take it up tonight.

Mr. Deans: Well, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Now, we have before us --

Mr. Deans: I regret, if I may. I regret I must --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I challenge your ruling, sir; I’m sorry. I have to in order to preserve the rules.

Mr. Reid: Having said that, the chairman, being Mr. Deputy Speaker --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the next session I shall refer it to Mr. Speaker. I have made my ruling. The hon. member for Wentworth says he wishes to challenge it.

Those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling will please say “aye.”

Mr. Foulds: No, no. Chairman’s ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Chairman’s ruling.

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Shulman: Out we go again.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, two members have just come in -- no, three members have just come in.

Mr. Chairman: Well, they were not counted.

Mr. Stokes: The doors are supposed to be closed when a vote is being taken.

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Stokes: I won’t sit down. You try and make me.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

The committee divided on the chairman’s ruling, which was upheld by the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 42, the “nays” are 19.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the ruling upheld.

I recognize the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It being 1:05 in the morning, and it being obvious, to me at least, that the opportunity for productive debate has long passed, I move that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I adjourn the House let me say that I am appalled at the ability of the NDP to frustrate the Legislature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, just before calling the business of the House for Thursday, I will say that I am also amazed at the activity of the whip of the NDP just before the House closed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Just before the adjournment of the House --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the hon. member for Wentworth take his seat? The leader of the House would like to announce what we are going to do on Thursday next.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would, and I would like to say that I was amazed at the whip of the NDP --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Will the House leader make his announcement for Thursday please?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister’s incompetence has been exposed for what it is.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Don’t let him fool around. Let the minister just say what he has to say.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is exactly what I want to do.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Resign. Withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Fool? The member will be known as the greatest of all fools.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: He refuses to do anything.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have a little bit of order and act like responsible people elected to come to this Legislature and conduct the business of the Province of Ontario? Will the House leader announce what we are going to do on Thursday so the opposition members will have a chance to prepare themselves?

Mr. Lawlor: His party has to put up with him. We don’t have to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will return to the same order of business on Thursday. I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s better.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, just before you move the adjournment --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I moved the adjournment. I moved it. Sit down.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:10 o’clock, a.m.