Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to your attention a difficult situation we in the opposition are experiencing in getting adequate answers from the government in response to questions placed in Orders and Notices.

In the responses coming from the government last week, the ministry indicated that while it would like to provide the answers to the questions we posed, we had simply asked for too much information and therefore "the government has a duty to consider whether other existing sources might aid the queriers in their pursuit of information."

Included in the "other existing sources" the government refers to are the caucus research offices. As we all know, these resources have increased considerably in recent years. We did indeed attempt to utilize our research facilities to obtain the information. In fact, three weeks ago our researchers contacted the finance and accounting branch of the Ministry of Health to inquire specifically about four contracts listed in the 1982-83 public accounts. Our only questions were about what services were obtained and whether the contracts were tendered.

The information was finally obtained from that ministry, but just before it was provided to our research office, the executive director of the minister's finance and administration division indicated: "Since the Liberal Party has posed the questions on the order paper, they can get their answers when those questions are answered. So I have instructed our staff here not to provide your party with any information on those types of question."

I simply make the point that in its response last week the government said to use the research facilities to get the information. When our researchers phone the public service, the response is that there are questions on the order paper which, when answered, will provide the information and the Liberal Party can wait for that.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) often says, "They cannot have it both ways." In this instance, Mr. Speaker, you are our impartial advocate. I ask you as the chairman of this assembly to see that the rules that give us the right to ask questions on the order paper and the tradition that the answers will be forthcoming are upheld. We ask you for your assistance in bringing the ministry, particularly the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and his colleague, to the point where they can do their duty.

Mr. Speaker: I will be happy to transmit that information to the government House leader. I am sure he will speak with his colleagues and in due time will probably get an answer back to you. I urge him to do so.

[Later]

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that concerns my attempt to receive information from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Last spring the ministry undertook a rural women's study, which originally was to have been ready last fall. However, after I wrote to the minister about receiving a copy of this report he indicated he did not expect --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has already raised that point. I urged the government House leader to transmit it to his colleagues. It is to be hoped there will be some action.

Mr. Riddell: No. He did not raise that.

Mr. Speaker: Oh yes, he did, with all respect.

MIDGET HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, through this past week and on the weekend a national event was held in North Bay: the Air Canada Cup, the national midget hockey championship. I know all members of the House will want to join me in congratulating the North Bay Pine Hill Coffee Shop hockey team, which won the Air Canada Cup. They are now the 1984 national champions. It is the first time in the past seven or eight years that a team from Ontario has won and the first time the Air Canada Cup has come to Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: This being April 24, I ask all honourable members to join with me in recognizing a new group of pages, who are beginning their duties today. They look forward with great anticipation and, I think, some little bit of nervousness to what is going to go on. I wish to read their names into the record:

Jonathan Abrams, Leeds; Tanya Andes, Middlesex; Christine Annett, Peterborough; Sarah Flynn, Armourdale; Tracy Gaudun, Haldimand-Norfolk; Patrick Hubley, Niagara Falls; Chris Hurren, Durham West; Paul Johnson, Hamilton Mountain; Trevor Julian, Nipissing; Jennifer Keresturi, Brant-Oxford-Norfolk; Thomas Kuster, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel;

Aimee Mabini, Wentworth North; Tammy MacDonald, Cochrane South; Kimberly McClain, Grey-Bruce; Heather McKinlay, Kent-Elgin; Christian McMillan, Algoma-Manitoulin; Kamal Mundi, Mississauga North; Mark Paznar, Mississauga South; Mark Purkis, Eglinton; Craig Smith, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Peter Smith, Sault Ste. Marie; Jessie Turner, Renfrew North, and Tim Vanbodegom, Simcoe Centre.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, apropos of your last remark, I hope the pages are aware that one of the great debates they will have will be that of job security or work sharing. I do not know which one is paramount these days; but, knowing where the last session came from, it will offer them a great deal of debate as they go forward.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on another matter I rise to enlist the support of all my colleagues in the Legislature for Organ Donor Awareness Week, which officially opened Monday.

All members know of the vital importance of the organ donor awareness program. Hundreds of our citizens across the country and in our province have literally been given a new life by the generosity of others. Organ donations increased in 1983, and we are grateful for that increase. However, there is still a chronic shortage, and hundreds of people are awaiting help.

Organ donations are literally priceless gifts, and our theme this week is particularly appropriate. It is: Together we can save someone's life. Members will be cognizant of the fact that the need is indeed critical. Is there anyone in our province who is not moved by the situation of Lindsay Eberhardt, two years old and in desperate need of a liver transplant? There are others whose need is also desperate.

Shortages in donations of eyes and kidneys mean continued suffering for too many people in our province. Dr. Ross Bennett, Ontario's chief coroner, who has been in the forefront of the organ donation program, points out that such donations are more significant than ever since recent medical advances have dramatically increased the success rate of cornea and kidney transplants. The success rate is now close to 90 per cent.

I ask the honourable members who may not have done so to take the time to sign their driver's licences or an organ donation card and to urge family and friends to do the same. Sign up for life and give the gift of life itself.

Finally, I know I speak for my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and other members of the Legislature when I express my appreciation to some dedicated individuals whose contributions to the organ donor awareness program have been invaluable. Dr. Michael Robinette and Dr. Calvin Stiller, co-chairmen of the task force on organ donation, and others involved in both the task force and the Metro organ retrieval and exchange program deserve our heartiest thanks.

2:10 p.m.

AMENDMENTS TO TRAFFIC ACTS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make a brief statement with regard to the introduction of three bills which will take place later in the proceedings. One is to amend the Highway Traffic Act, a second is to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act and a third is to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Let me highlight some of the major amendments in the Highway Traffic Act. In the interests of increased highway safety, the overall length of coupled vehicles, including the load, has been increased from 21 metres to 23 metres for vehicles travelling on a highway.

Following the recommendations of Dr. Robert Uffen's report of the Ontario Commission on Truck Safety, this two-metre increase will allow truck-trailer combinations, currently operating at 21 metres with cab-over-engine tractors, to operate with cab-behind-engine, long-wheelbase tractors without a loss of carrying capacity.

The use of cab-behind-engine tractors provides more stability, which in turn not only provides greater safety for other road users but also gives greater protection to the truck driver.

As a safeguard, to ensure this increased length does not result in unacceptable configurations, coupled vehicles must measure no more than 19 metres from the back of the driver's compartment of the tractor to the rearmost part of the vehicle combination. It will also allow for a vehicle combination with a distance of 16.75 metres or less between the centre of the kingpin of the first trailer and the rearmost part of the combination.

Another area of concern is the use of air brakes. The act has been amended to require drivers who have vehicles equipped with air brakes to obtain an air brake endorsement appropriate for their class of vehicle. This requirement will not become effective immediately as it will take some time to design the appropriate endorsement system.

Also, to meet the need for ambulances to respond quickly to emergencies, these vehicles will be exempt from speed limits while responding to an emergency call or transporting a patient or injured person in an emergency situation.

The act has also been revised with respect to those persons who drink and drive motorized snow vehicles. They will have their driver's licences suspended under the same terms as motorists who drink and drive.

The section dealing with school buses has also been rewritten, with new definitions for "children" and "school." In addition, the use of chrome yellow school buses has been extended to include charter-like trips for children.

Next, a major rewording of the sections of the Highway Traffic Act will deal with traffic controls and traffic control systems to clarify the law. It will standardize the technical terminology and permit technical matters to be handled through regulations. There are no substantive changes in these sections.

One area that will create substantive change is the introduction of an administrative fee for reinstating a suspended driver's licence. At the end of a suspension period, the driver must pay an administrative fee to reinstate that licence.

The second bill amends the Off-Road Vehicles Act. Legislation has been expanded to allow children under the age of 12 to drive an off-road vehicle under the close supervision of an adult.

The third bill modifies the new licence rewrite section of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act which was passed last December.

The representatives of both carriers and shippers who are advising the government on the implementation of responsible trucking agree that the two-stage licence rewrite process involving third-party interventions is excessively complex, time-consuming and open to technical court challenges. These could combine to frustrate this essential phase towards trucking regulatory reform. The narrow limitations already placed on the Ontario Highway Transport Board while rewriting certificates makes this intervention process unnecessary and undesirable.

I trust all members of this House will see the value in these new provisions and amendments.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: With the concurrence of the House, I have been advised that we have a distinguished visitor in the members' gallery in the person of Mr. Douglas Lewis, member of Parliament for Simcoe North. I ask all members to welcome him.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is that the Doug Lewis who read a letter in the House of Commons purported to be signed by me? Is he the one?

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you should ask him.

Mr. Nixon: Probably it is.

Mr. Peterson: He is doing a revenue audit on members of the cabinet. That is why he is here. I am sure it is fertile ground.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is no doubt aware of the reports in two separate articles in today's Toronto Sun with respect to the long waiting lists for cardiac surgery in Toronto. In particular, I am sure he is aware of the statements attributed to Dr. Scully and another, unnamed doctor that people are dying because of the failure of his ministry to provide a fourth cardiac unit in Toronto.

The minister has been aware of these problems for a long time. He has heard other doctors in other cities, such as Dr. Linton in London, make the same allegation that people were dying because of a shortage of hospital beds and cardiac units.

Now that the minister is specifically confronted by doctors being quoted about information he has denied in the past, how can he maintain we have sufficient resources when experts are saying people are dying?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I guess the accurate part of the honourable member's question was his very last comment that people are dying. I caution him carefully about choosing to draw any direct relationship between a waiting list and the life expectancy of a given individual. He ought to look closely at what the individuals he is quoting have actually said.

Mr. Mancini: Do not lecture us.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member deserves a little lecture once in a while when he plays footloose and fancy-free on a matter as serious as this.

The waiting lists to which the member refers have been declining. Since late 1982 they have declined fairly significantly in the length of time one might wait for cardiac surgery. That does not beg the issue that we do have a recommendation from the district health council with respect to a fourth cardiac unit in Metropolitan Toronto. That is under consideration. There are ongoing discussions between staff in the ministry and at least one of the prospective hospitals where such a unit might be placed.

2:20 p.m.

I do not say this to be provocative, but only to try to encourage the member in his questions to put in perspective the information he may receive through the media, in particular that one might arbitrarily draw a conclusion from the fact that an individual may be on a waiting list and the fact that he dies. There is a body of expert information, represented most recently in the New England Journal of Medicine -- I am not drawing any firm conclusion from it, but I think one must at least weigh it in the context of the conclusion one might erroneously draw from the statements that have been made -- which suggests that although cardiac surgery may substantially improve the quality of life of an individual in eliminating some of the pain he might experience from time to time, there is substantial evidence that it does not affect life expectancy. One at least has to recognize that.

Mr. Peterson: Is that the minister's policy now?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not a matter of policy; it is a matter of information for the honourable member. I did not raise that to be provocative, only to provide some additional information the member might wish to consider.

Mr. Peterson: As someone whose father went through this, I can say the minister is mistaken in his knowledge. If he is formulating government policy on the basis of some medical journal in the United States that may or may not be correct, no wonder we are as fouled up as we are.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware that as of May 1, 1984, the waiting list for open-heart surgery in Toronto is 364 patients? On December 1, 1983, it was 379 patients. There is no appreciable improvement in those waiting lists, contrary to the information the minister just tried to give this House.

Is he also aware his ministry was informed on March 17, 1980 -- four years ago -- there was a need for a fourth cardiac unit in Toronto? This should not be a surprise to the minister or his predecessor. Now a respectable doctor, whom I am quoting, says the same thing. If the minister wants to stand up in this House and say that doctor is misinformed and his information is incorrect, then he should do so, but he should not weasel around.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: That doctor is saying people have died because of the delay in surgery. Is this the first time the minister has heard it? How can he support a ministry policy that allows people to die when he could have had a fourth unit and kept those patients alive longer? Surely that is the issue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I treat the matter very seriously but I do not wish to engage in histrionics. I would point out to the member that my father, during his lifetime, also happens to have suffered extensively from heart disease. The member is not unique in being affected by that issue, one which is perhaps not relevant to the discussion before us.

Mr. Peterson: The minister brought it up.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I did not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member raised the fact that his expertise was based upon the experience of his father. I think we ought to raise this discussion somewhat above those kinds of personal considerations and I shall attempt to do so.

The question of the accuracy of the information the member has is one I suppose only he can determine, but my information is that the waiting time for a person awaiting a procedure to be performed has in fact declined. My information is as recent as this morning and was gleaned in an effort to confirm the accuracy of the press report. The three-month period is relevant to late 1982.

For the cardiac units in Metropolitan Toronto, the waiting period as of the end of March at Toronto General Hospital was approximately 2.5 months, at Toronto Western Hospital, 2.5 months and at St. Michael's Hospital, 1.5 months, which represents a significant decline over the last two years.

I am not going to criticize the physician who expressed the opinion; I am not sure we have an accurate rendition of what he said. I happen to know the individual and have known him for years. He was a classmate in school. I have no reason to question his integrity or his sincerity. I would like to have a chance to talk to him to find out whether he said precisely that.

Again I say this not to be provocative, but I think we have to be careful about some of the things in the press that are attributed to people. In response to our inquiry this morning, one senior official at the hospital who was allegedly quoted in the article referred to a number of the issues raised in it as being "a pile of crap."

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister constantly defending the status quo and trying to pretend there is not a problem, whether it be the cardiac problem in Toronto or similar situations that exist in other regions of the province, or whether it be the reality in the whole health care system right now, as evidenced by the minister's own bed studies and by bed studies we have discussed in this Legislature before, that there is a backup of elective surgery throughout the whole system because of poor planning?

When is the minister going to come to grips with the fact that people are having to wait too long for surgery, whether it be cardiac surgery or other forms of elective surgery, and we are putting people at risk? When is he going to come to grips with that situation and deal with the reality rather than defending the status quo, which presents grave problems for sick people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I hope what I have been saying has not impressed members as defending the status quo. By and large, I have been trying to correct an erroneous impression that has been created by virtue of the information that appeared, at least in headline form, in some of the Toronto press today and on one earlier occasion.

The question of the availability of beds is also a very difficult one to get across. The fact is, in my opinion, there are problems in terms of the methods by which beds are currently allocated in our health care system.

I would point out that it might be at least of some educative value for us to look at the experience in the city of Hamilton, for example, with the central bed registry and the use of a computer in identifying available beds. A problem that was perceived to exist in Hamilton a couple of years ago has effectively disappeared as a result of a more efficient system of allocating beds. That is not to say there are not still some needs within that community, but it is a substantially changed situation.

I would also point out that within the hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto at any given time -- and there have been three or four occasions on which this has been done in an effort to try to determine what the situation is across the system in this community when a number of hospitals have indicated they are faced with a shortage of beds -- one predictably will find approximately 1,000 empty beds. It is an allocation problem, which I hope to address, but we may not find the most effective way to address it is through simply responding to the perceived need and request for additional beds.

Mr. Peterson: The minister quoted the waiting list period at Toronto General for cardiac surgery as being two and a half months. He is right. But last December it was two and a half months as well; so there is no appreciable change. At Toronto Western Hospital, as of December 1, it was three months; it is now two and a half months. At St. Michael's Hospital, it was one and a half months and it is still one and a half months. There has been no significant change in terms of the waiting lists.

Given the fact again that in the Platt report the ministry was notified four or five years ago of the need for an extra cardiac unit, and given the fact that some 60 per cent of those people come from outside Metro Toronto to have that surgery because they do not have the same facility where they reside, surely the minister is cheating not just the residents of Toronto but people all across this province. Will he now not apply his mind to making sure that fourth cardiac unit is provided in the city of Toronto for the residents of all this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am glad the member now agrees with my figures. I thought he was quoting a figure of three months or in excess of three months for the waiting period when he rose to ask the question initially. If it were checked, I think Hansard might indicate that was the figure he used, as opposed to the figures I quoted and that he now agrees with.

I also would point out that although he goes back to December, which is only a few months ago, and says there has been no change, the figure he was using originally was referable not to three or four months ago but to the latter part of 1982. So if he looks at the trend over that period, there has been an improvement.

2:30 p.m.

The other thing it is important to bear in mind is that it is our opinion, and I think the opinion of at least two of the three hospitals involved, the waiting period is declining. This is not necessarily true of Toronto General Hospital where they are taxed heavily at present. The situation there is made a little worse by the fact that one of the senior cardiac surgeons at Toronto Western Hospital is out of service because he himself is undergoing bypass surgery. So there is a bit of difficulty within the system at the moment as other hospitals try to respond to that situation.

However, it is important to get the full picture before jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete information. The waiting period is apparently declining. I am not suggesting it is going to decline dramatically below the present level.

At the moment we are discussing with one other hospital the possibility of its being the site for a fourth cardiac unit. I would expect within the next two to three months, by the early summer perhaps, we would be in a position to have made such a decision. In the interim, I have asked that two of those three hospitals particularly seek to increase their capacity within existing facilities. I made it clear that through our funding formula we would make the funding available for the additional demands upon their service.

[Later]

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the Minister of Health owes this House an apology. He has been defending the unbelievably long waiting list for cardiac surgery. The fact that his ministry is collecting Ontario health insurance plan premiums --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: I think it is.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is not. Please resume your seat.

Mr. Sargent: Why can you not hear my question?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I still think it is a form of fraud, what he is doing.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, why do you not throw him out?

Mr. Speaker: Do not tempt me. These long weekends are obviously not productive.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is no doubt aware of the report issued this morning called Toronto's Drinking Water: A Chemical Assessment. He is no doubt aware of the disturbing findings in it. For the first time, to the best of our knowledge, there has been an admission by a public body of significant levels of toxic chemicals and metals in the drinking water of a major metropolitan area -- Toronto -- and other communities as well.

Some of our treatment methods are based on century-old technology and we have not made investments in the treatment of water that would prevent some of these problems. Given this fact, will the minister now accelerate projects for ozonization and activated carbon filtration for drinking water so that we can guarantee the safety of that drinking water in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware that in this very House not more than a couple of weeks ago I announced we were introducing the carbon filtration process in the great riding of Niagara Falls. I noted that experiment would cost the government some $1 million over a three-year period. That answers at least part of the member's question with respect to our commitment to look at and investigate new technology and new methods of removing some of the trace contaminants he mentioned in the preamble to his question.

There are perhaps trace levels or background levels of some contaminants. However, I think it is important there is no report, including the one the member is referring to, that indicates the water quality is not safe. This applies to the Toronto area or anywhere else in Ontario for that matter. No report says it is anything other than safe, healthy and completely sound to drink under all circumstances. If that is not the case I will be the first to tell the member, but the reality is if we can find --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Peterson: I wish you had cut off the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). He got away with --

Mr. Speaker: I am trying to make up time.

Mr. Peterson: This minister sounds very much like Ronald Reagan talking about acid rain until he is pounded on the head. However, he should look at the line on page 8 of the report which says: "The use of this estimate does not imply that consumption of Toronto's water causes cancer. However, it is intended to stress that there are risks associated with drinking water."

Clearly, there are some risks and there is a need for further research and an active attack on this problem. This report admits these trace levels of certain toxins for the first time.

Given the major breakthrough of this report and the major step forward, to which I am sure the minister will admit, will he now adopt the posture of an active attack on this problem, not just in spending $300,000 a year for three years on a miniature pilot public relations program in Niagara?

Will he use his good offices to try to restore the budget cuts that were made in his ministry last year by his friend the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), to make sure we launch an active attack on that problem here? We have the technology, it is a proven technology and it needs only a commitment from the minister and his government. Will he give us that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The levels of contamination the Leader of the Opposition is talking about are certainly not at a serious level that would indicate this province should now make a commitment to him, in a rather arbitrary fashion, that we are going to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars without knowing whether it is even necessary or appropriate to put in the more sophisticated filtration systems he is talking about.

I want to reiterate that the report that has just been released is a 170-page report; it is new to the point that my ministry has not even had an opportunity to review it in detail. I am sure his people do not know the detail of this report, either.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am sure they do.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Oh, they do not, because you have not had an opportunity to analyse it in detail.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of the information contained in the report and the very real recommendations the report makes with respect to the drinking water of the city of Toronto, can the minister tell us why he is downplaying the information in the report? In particular, why, for example, is he downplaying the finding that there was an increase in infant mortality and neonatal mortality significantly correlated with overall water mutagenicity?

So the minister will know what that means, as the water becomes more contaminated with chemicals, as the drinking water of Lake Ontario has become, there is a significant correlation between that chemical contamination and the increase in infant mortality and neonatal mortality. Toronto's water has relatively high mutagenicity compared with that of other municipalities in Ontario.

This is serious information. Why is the minister downplaying the importance of this information?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in no way am I downplaying the importance of the information, but I have to tell the member again there is nothing in this report that indicates there are any contaminants contained in the drinking water of the city of Toronto or the Metro area that are anything other than totally safe.

The report will be analysed in detail by my staff, but at this time we have absolutely no reason to indicate the kind of concern the member is expressing in this House. Frankly, I think it is bordering on irresponsibility to indicate to the people of this area there is something wrong with this drinking water, which I can assure the member I drink in good health and without any concern every day.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recognize his ministry was going around pointing out that a good number of the 20th century chemicals that were pointed out as being present in Lake Ontario at the time Pollution Probe made a report on the drinking water in Toronto were being taken out by attaching themselves to particles in the water and were therefore being successfully filtered out by the standard treatment process. In fact, people in his ministry were indicating, as I understand it, that no trace elements were getting through the processes now in effect.

2:40 p.m.

Will the minister now admit publicly that the treatment facilities in place here in Ontario are not meeting 20th century treatment needs? Will he endeavour to put into effect, as my leader has requested, an updated program to deal with the 20th century difficulties that have been created by the introduction of new and toxic chemicals into our waters?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the investment this government is making in the Niagara Falls area is one in which we hope to be able to determine the propriety of that particular technology to see whether it is even necessary and whether it will work as effectively as the member thinks it will.

Two cities in North America have the carbon filtration process in place. Because of high contamination of the water in those areas, there were specific reasons for putting the carbon filtration process into place there. They are the cities of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Cincinnati, Ohio.

I can only share again with the member the fact that we are quite prepared to move into this type of technology if it is proved necessary. However, I am not going to commit the government today to a tremendously large expenditure of money, particularly without concurrence and without further discussion with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). I am not going to do this until I am assured it is absolutely necessary.

Again, I want to say to the leader of the third party, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and to my critic in the opposition that there is no evidence whatever indicating this technology is necessary at this time.

Thank you for another glass of water.

Mr. Rae: The minister can clown around all he likes, but the fact of the matter remains that the report itself states that "there are also vast uncertainties." This is not the blanket statement the minister made. The report talks about "vast uncertainties" about the health effects of many chemicals which have been detected in drinking water.

The report outlines those that are known; however, our knowledge is very incomplete. The report goes on to say that we cannot dismiss these seemingly low concentrations as being insignificant because we simply do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given the kind of approach taken by the department of public health of the city of Toronto, the kind of attitude they are expressing, how can the minister possibly justify the blasé approach which says there is nothing wrong, there is no problem, all we need to spend is $1 million out of the $314 million in his budget on this kind of small project which is going on, on a purely experimental basis, and which is less than anything being done in United States cities?

How can he say this is going to be adequate? How can he possibly justify taking this kind of a blasé approach when the report contains this kind of information?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Quite easily. The reality is that today there are very sophisticated measuring techniques whereby we are able to measure in parts per trillion, as opposed to the parts per million or per billion measurements that were used some years ago, even as short as a year or two ago. The reality is that we can measure at far more precise levels than the information we are able to get in terms of what the impact of this is on the health of a human being.

The member is quite correct in suggesting there is a great deal of information we do not have with regard to some of the questions today. However, the reality is we are able to measure at much lower levels, which makes the precision of the testing that much finer than anything we have had before.

We have never denied there are trace or background levels of some certain types of contamination in the water. However, there is no evidence -- and I want to repeat this -- whatever to indicate those trace or background levels are unsafe in any way, shape or form. I want this to stand on the record.

Mr. Rae: All I can say is that the report, when faced with the situation, shows a lot more humility and a lot more concern about what real scientific evidence is all about than the Minister of the Environment has shown today in the House. I think Hansard should show this.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: One of the sources that has been identified as a significant problem has to do with the fish which exist today in Metropolitan Toronto.

Is the minister aware of the real backlog in sewage separation that exists today in Metropolitan Toronto? Is he aware, for example, that it is going to cost the city of York an estimated additional $90 million, which the minister knows it does not have, to separate its sewers? It is going to cost $35 million for the borough of East York to do the same. The runoff problem, from the Don River, which borders East York, and the Humber River, which borders the city of York, has been identified as a very real source of concern.

What is holding up the minister from introducing a kind of capital assistance program to allow the cities and boroughs in Metropolitan Toronto to do the kind of sewage separation that would begin to reduce the amount of contamination going into Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The committee set up by Metro to deal with this very problem indicated publicly that it was more than satisfied with the response of the province, this government and the ministry I am responsible for.

We have accelerated our expenditures and our investments in the very programs the member is asking about. We have indicated our complete co-operation with Metro Toronto in the cleanup of the separation problem it faces.

I would like to suggest that one of the missing players in this whole problem happens to be the government in Ottawa. If Ottawa put some money into the program, perhaps we could then accelerate the program even more, but at the present time we are still awaiting further word from that government to determine whether it is prepared to make the kind of commitment we have already made.

Mr. Elston: The minister will understand that members of his ministry were in Ottawa at a drinking water conference in January. At least one of his officials spent a good deal of time defending the quality of Toronto's drinking water, indicating there was absolutely nothing wrong, espousing the ministry's old line that all the dangerous contaminants settle out and are not present in the post-treatment drinking water.

Will the minister now make available to Metro and to others who need to know the information his ministry officials were able to pick up from the experts from around the world who also attended the conference? These people have been trained and have introduced systems in Switzerland and West Germany and in some places in Scandinavia. They have recommended that Ontario should adopt this new technology to deal with what even the minister calls trace elements of contaminants in our drinking water.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The technology we have in place and the water quality levels we deem to be appropriate are constantly under review by this minister and this government in consultation with local authorities and also with the federal government. I have no difficulty whatever in sharing that kind of information with the local authorities and consulting them, as we always do on these matters, nor do I have difficulty in giving that undertaking.

Mr. Rae: The report states very clearly that there are risks associated with drinking the water in Toronto. There are also four very specific recommendations to the Ministry of the Environment that the report addresses, in addition to a number of other recommendations that are made with respect to the United States and what is flowing into the Niagara River and so on.

Is the minister prepared to say today the Ministry of the Environment will act on those four concerns and will provide the city with the kind of assistance it is looking for in order to establish a state of the art in terms of control of emissions, control of stuff that is getting into the water and the disinfection of sewage treatment?

Is the minister prepared to make at least those commitments today with respect to the future safety of drinking water in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: No, I am not. I am prepared, however, to give an undertaking to the leader of the third party that we will analyse the 170-page report in detail. There are some questions that have been raised by some of my technical staff with respect to the testing protocols and some of the information contained in that report.

We may have a response to that report -- in all probability we will -- which will be a critique of the report. Certainly, we are not in agreement with all aspects of the report, and I think one would expect we would do just that. I will get back to the member with respect to my ministry's response to the report. As I have indicated earlier, it is a new, detailed, complex and complicated report, and I am quite prepared to get back to the member, specifically with respect to the four recommendations.

2:50 p.m.

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the minister is aware of the resolution passed almost unanimously last Wednesday by the directors of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which demands the immediate enactment of a provincial red meat stabilization program.

It had a final sentence that reads as follows:

"Further be it resolved that if a meaningful payment plan of 100 per cent of total cost of production, including labour at zero equity, is not implemented within 30 days, the OFA demand the immediate resignation or dismissal of Mr. Dennis Timbrell, Mr. Bill Doyle and Mr. Larry Grossman."

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farmers do not pass that kind of resolution unless they are desperate and unless they are convinced this government has rejected their legitimate requests and has callously ignored their plight? Is he now going to accede to their request and implement immediately a provincial stabilization plan, with payment equal to that of the other red meat producing provinces and with a retroactive component as demanded by the OFA?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in such distinguished company as my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and my very able assistant deputy minister, Mr. Doyle. I learned of this resolution last Wednesday night. I had been in Ridgetown that night for the Rotary rural-urban night. I got home about midnight and took a call from the president of the federation. When I told my wife, she said, "Does that mean we get the summer off?" Not everybody received it the same way the member did.

Two years ago I began the process leading towards -- I do not want to sound immodest -- the development of the tripartite stabilization plan, which will be in effect this year. It was begun by this government. At that time, I insisted that all the affected and interested producer organizations be involved, our own beef, pork, sheep producers and our own federation, along with their national counterparts and the National Farmers' Union.

From the outset it was made very clear, not only by certain other provinces, but particularly by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that they would not support in any way, shape or form, the formula proposed in the resolution passed last Wednesday at the monthly meeting of the OFA board.

Mr. Swart: The hog producers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is right. The Canadian Pork Council was looking for a cost of production formula, but along the way in developing a national consensus and getting the agreement of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- and we think other provinces will join when this agreement is finalized in July at the annual meeting of ministers -- that has been something which in the process of the negotiations had to be set to one side. If we had insisted on it, we never would have got any agreement of any kind. That is the first thing.

Secondly, if the member takes into account the $57 million payment made by Ontario in 1981 to all beef producers and the moneys expended on the farm adjustment assistance program, in fact there has been little, if any, difference between the support offered since 1981 by this government and the support offered by governments in other parts of Canada.

Plans such as the one at present in existence in Saskatchewan, which will be phased out with the introduction of the tripartite stabilization program, are premium-based programs. The producers have to contribute premiums to the program and thereby assume responsibility for their share of the deficit. The deficit in the Saskatchewan plan is now $30 million, for which the producers are partly responsible.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that when he promised a tripartite program he led the producers to believe it would be implemented in the near future? Last September he said it would be in before the end of the year. In November he said it would be only a few weeks until the details would be in place. It has gone on and on. The farmers have changed their minds and they now want a provincial program.

Let me ask the minister specifically whether it is not true that the enrolment in the tripartite program, if it ever comes, is proposed for some time towards the end of the year or next April and during the first year only part of the stabilization payments will be made in Ontario. What help will that be to the farmers of this province? It is okay for the other provinces where they have red meat programs that carry on. Does the minister propose extra payments by Ontario or a supplementary plan so that payments will start at once? Or is he satisfied to let the plan be phased in over 1984-1985 with Ontario producers once again at a tremendous disadvantage compared with producers in those other provinces?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I said before, I have in front of me letters from the president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and a copy of a telex from the chairman of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board. Both gentlemen, representing all beef and hog producers in Ontario, are supporting the tripartite program as it has been developed and as it will be agreed to at the annual ministers' meeting in July.

In conclusion, I re-emphasize that the support already given by this government since 1981, including the emergency payment in late 1981 and the farm adjustment assistance program since late 1981, early 1982, makes the assistance of this government roughly comparable to that afforded in those provinces about which the member is concerned.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) would make reference to a resolution when he does not even take the time to attend the odd directors' meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to understand what is behind some of these resolutions.

Interjections.

Mr. Riddell: As a matter of interest, I was at the last directors' meeting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mel was shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: The minister is no doubt aware that Ontario leads the nation in the proportion of total Farm Credit Corp. loans and arrears, with payments outstanding on 30 per cent of these loans, which he must realize is a clear indication of the extent farmers are suffering in this province. The minister must surely realize by now the one reason for the high level of arrears in FCC farm loans in Ontario is that other provinces offer their farmers more comprehensive interest assistance and financial support programs than Ontario does.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Moreover, while the minister has been promising a tripartite stabilization plan since he took office some two years ago, and it has yet to see the light of day, does he not feel he has an obligation to help our farming community recover from its current recession? Has the minister discussed with the Treasurer the immediate need for a financial assistance program for our red meat producers, which should be introduced in the upcoming budget? I ask that recognizing the Treasurer went out into the country not too long ago and told farmers he was surprised at the plight of the red meat industry in this province. It appeared he was going to do something about it.

Has the minister been discussing with the Treasurer what kind of assistance he can give to the red meat producers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly been discussing the needs of the agricultural industry. I would point out that this Treasurer and his predecessor have been extremely helpful to me, over the course of the last 26 months that I have been the Minister of Agriculture and Food, in approving a variety of programs aimed at assisting the agricultural industry. These include the beginning farmers assistance program, extension of the farm adjustment assistance program, introduction of our proposals for agribonds, changes in the municipal tax rebate program and on and on.

If one looks at the record over the last two years and the programs introduced by this government with the assistance and active co-operation of the Treasurer and his predecessor, I think one can only conclude that the commitment of this government to agriculture remains very high.

Regarding programs in other provinces, there are many programs we have in Ontario that they do not have in other provinces and vice versa. We do not try to match them program for program, nor do they try to match us.

Not only have we taken the lead in the area of stabilization but we have also taken the lead in this country in proposing to the federal government a joint federal-provincial program under the agribond umbrella for tackling the problems of the farm community with respect to more affordable long-term debt. It is not for lack of effort on our part and it is certainly not for a lack of commitment on our part.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the minister has been proposing schemes to Ottawa at a time when other governments have actually been doing something. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec each have plans with respect to price supports.

How can the minister justify his statement in September when he said a plan was going to be introduced in the fall? How can he justify his statement in November when he said he was over the hump in terms of getting a plan into effect?

The failure to introduce a plan in 1983-84 has cost the red meat producers of this province $120 million in money they should have received in price supports from this government. How can the minister possibly justify that kind of delay and the gobbledegook that has gone on for more than a year in his promising to do something for the red meat producers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where the honourable member gets the figure of $120 million. If we are talking about justifying things, I would like to see his calculations for that. It seems it is something he has pulled out of mid-air.

Second, there have been countless meetings to discuss tripartite stabilization because there have been many obstacles to overcome, not the least being the lack of support from the members opposite. They have given no support or assistance at all in overcoming some of those obstacles when I have asked them to do so.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Whom was I pointing to?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development with respect to his favourite topic with which he is struggling: freedom of information.

Is the provincial secretary aware of the report that six ministries of the Ontario government have sent form letters to the federal authorities to thwart the release of any intergovernmental information under the federal Access to Information Act? Does the minister know that each of the letters wants secrecy for the ministry and for an appended list of related organizations, such as, in the example of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, every college and university, a number of commissions and corporations and all Ontario school boards?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the number of ministries that have written to the federal government in relation to its access to information and privacy act. I did advise various ministries of the implications of the federal act and said that if they sought protection for sensitive information they should contact the people in Ottawa with whom they are sharing their information.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has with its list a two-page attachment that includes 14 institutions, including the Ontario Grain Corn Council and the Ontario Stock Yards Board, eight advisory agencies, eight appeal and review boards such as the Wolf Damage Assessment Board, three financial protection plan boards and every marketing board, will the minister responsible for freedom of information review this situation and take on his responsibility finally to bring in a bill on freedom of information that would stop this nonsense?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I will certainly review the matter.

COST OF NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister will now have had an opportunity to read the letter I sent to him and his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Has the minister finished the study of a barge service to serve the communities along the shores of Hudson Bay and James Bay to bring down the high cost of living? What does he think of a situation in this province whereby a gallon of gas costs $6.20, four litres of naphtha cost $9.95, four litres of kerosene cost $8.89 and one litre of motor oil costs $3.80?

When is he going to implement the recommendations that were in the Task Force Study of Transportation and Living Costs in the Far North to redress these terrible situations in the province?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for sending me a copy of the letter received from the Fort Severn Indian band in which those points were outlined.

As the member has correctly pointed out, we made an intensive study of the cost of living in that remote area of northern Ontario. It made a number of recommendations we are proceeding with. One is the continuation of the winter road program. The member will allow me to inform the House that this program has gone exceptionally well this year, with the road going from Moosonee to Attawapiskat and from Pickle Lake to Round Lake. We have had some difficulty with the road from Round Lake to Sandy Lake as the member well knows. We have subsidized the Windigo chiefs in putting the tractor-train route between Round Lake, Muskrat Dam, Bearskin Lake and on to Big Trout Lake.

We have also prevailed upon the federal government to assist the Pehtabun chiefs in the Sandy Lake area to cut the tractor-train route overland. This will see about 80 per cent of that winter road cut overland between Sandy Lake, Pikangikum and the Nungesser road. There is a lot of activity with respect to the winter roads program.

The study with respect to barging is nearing completion. We have had numerous discussions with people in the general area. I am pleased to report there is some interest from the private sector in putting on a barge from Moosonee, going up the west coast of Hudson Bay. I hope to have something positive to say about that within the next short period.

We have prevailed upon Canada Post Corp. as strongly as we can to continue its third class rate for the transportation of foodstuffs into that remote area of northern Ontario. We have encouraged the native co-ops to pool their buying power. We all know what is happening in the Pickle Lake area, where they are pooling together and causing some concern in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are all kinds of things going on and we are addressing the situation as seriously as we can.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister saying he endorses the application of the Windigo tribal council to get central purchasing and buying that might work to the detriment of the people in Pickle Lake?

When is the minister going to do something tangible? He has spent $20 million on an airstrip program in the north, and the cost of goods keeps escalating. There is somebody in the middle. I do not know whether it is the carriers, Hudson's Bay Co. or who it is, but the benefits that should have accrued as a result of an expenditure of $20 million on the airstrip program did not go to the people they were designed to serve.

The minister has an excellent opportunity to implement this barge system to redress the inequities along the coastal community. Why does he not do that? Winter roads do not apply up there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member will be very much aware that the cost of living has accelerated considerably over the last several years. I can tell him that, had it not been for the $20 million we put into the airstrip program, the price of foodstuffs in that area would be triple what it is today.

So there has been some effect, and he knows as well as I do that this effect is real and very tangible. We are continuing our efforts and are working very closely with the native bands in trying to resolve the situation.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the study to which he made reference is going to give some kind of break to the residents of Attawapiskat in the tremendously high costs they have to pay for food? Is he suggesting that the study he referred to is going to come up with a solution? Is he going to do something like giving them a tax break or some kind of accommodation to meet those very high food costs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that most of the foodstuffs are now flown into those remote areas by Canada Post; so the best rate possible is being applied to the transportation of foodstuffs.

What we are talking about here, and what the member for Lake Nipigon has brought up, is the high cost of transporting bulk commodities such as building materials and fuel, and we are trying to address that problem as quickly as we can.

AID TO TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer by now should have a good window on the various sectors of Ontario's economy through his prebudget consultations with various industry and trade groups. He has been made aware of the shocking reality that exists within our provincial tourism sector, where revenues have fallen so dramatically that the result last year was the worst deficit ever recorded for this sector, which is likely to be some $683 million.

Given that the inability of our provincial tourism sector to recover can be traced to the fact that we cannot compete with other jurisdictions because of the overtaxing and therefore overpricing of both products and services, will the Treasurer be addressing the problems specific to this sector in the 1984 budget, such as the tax on alcohol paid by licensees; reconsidering the inflationary effect of our ad valorem tax on gasoline, and especially the ripoff on Highway 401; reducing his sales tax on prepared meals; and eliminating the double taxation of disposable items in hotel and motel rooms, all of which would reduce the costs of those things to out-of-country visitors and to Ontarians themselves holidaying in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, of course we will be reviewing the impact of all those things on the tourism industry. My colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) has discussed literally each and every one of those items -- and, indeed, more -- with me at some length. In addition, Tourism Ontario has given us what perhaps is one of the best prebudget submissions we received out of the 55 prebudget meetings we have had.

What we always have to consider in this circumstance, of course, is which of those is going to make a real difference. Those changes that might sacrifice revenue with no fundamental impact on the tourism industry would be imprudent things to do. On the other hand, if a series of those changes might have a real impact, then it would be incumbent upon us to look at those options.

From my time as Minister of Industry and Tourism, I can well appreciate the fact that there is a great return on some of those tourism investments. In point of fact, I know the honourable member would want us to husband some money to increase our tourism advertising budget, as he so often has encouraged us to do.

Mr. Eakins: I just point out to the Treasurer that Tourism Ontario always gives a good prebudget presentation, but he does not do anything about it.

Given that our largest market after Ontario residents themselves is visitors from the United States but that their numbers have fallen sharply since 1981; and given that US tourists alone bring in more than $1 billion in revenue to this province, will the Treasurer be implementing specific measures to recapture the US market this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no one in Tourism Ontario who would endorse the statement the member for Victoria-Haliburton has just made that we do nothing about their submissions.

Mr. McClellan: Right on. There is no one in Tourism Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope that remark of the member for Bellwoods is on the record.

I have had the chance to review these submissions over the past few years, and here are just the things I can think of immediately: my predecessor took off the accommodation tax for several years; he took off retail sales tax on furniture and equipment for the tourism industry; he introduced the small business development corporation program, which has been very helpful.

He also introduced, with ourselves, the tourism redevelopment incentive program. Through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, under his chairmanship, we introduced a number of programs that have greatly assisted the tourism industry. Not only did they reflect his own commitment to the industry but they also reflected many ideas brought to us by Tourism Ontario. I can assure the member that this year, as in others, the report of Tourism Ontario will be given a great deal of consideration by us.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

This has been sent to me by approximately 100 people from the riding of Quinte and is signed by them.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another one of my notorious petitions here.

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores."

Naturellement, M. le Président, vous voudriez que je lise cette pétition alors en français également, pétition adressée au Lieutenant gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

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

This petition is signed by 124 people. That brings the total close to 1,000 by now, I guess.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 97 electors of Hamilton West to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

"We ask you to change the situation."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on February 21, 1983, I indicated to the honourable members at the time of the passage of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1983, that I would appoint a commissioner to inquire into and report on the principle of the discretionary local levy and related matters as it is used by boards of education within Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Bruce C. Bone was appointed as a commissioner and his terms of reference were to consider: one, for each of the elementary and secondary levels whether for any board of education within Metropolitan Toronto the amount of money generated by the application of the appropriate mill rate to the assessment roll for 1983 does provide sufficient flexibility for a board to meet needs that are considered unique by the board in the year 1984 and in subsequent years; and two, whether an alternative method for providing flexibility to the boards of education within Metropolitan Toronto to meet needs that are unique to each board might be more appropriate and, if so, what these methods might be.

On October 31, Mr. Bruce C. Bone submitted the report of the commission, in which he made eight recommendations. This act will provide the amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, part VIII, Education, required to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission to Inquire into the Discretionary Local Levy for Education in Metropolitan Toronto, namely the Bone commission.

We are proceeding with this bill because of the strong support for seven of the eight recommendations received from all of the school boards and the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. Recommendation 5, which concerns payments in lieu, which was not supported by those boards or municipalities, is not included in the bill.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 45, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have my three bills on the Orders and Notices in a row, but my friend the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) kind of slipped in on me there.

Mr. Roy: We find her pushy at times, too.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before I call the orders of the day, I might indicate that there has been a change in the printed business for today. After order 6 and before order 7, we are going to deal with Bill 13, An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the County Courts Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just one word. I know my good friend the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would like this to pass quickly, but I would just like to remind him again that I think this particular amendment, which increases the jurisdiction from $15,000 to $25,000, is not sufficient and should be increased much more, in my opinion. I outlined my reason for saying that on second reading.

I say again I think it is unfortunate and at times somewhat demeaning to that bench just to give it, in a civil jurisdiction, $25,000, and that is unfortunately being exploited by certain members of the profession, especially those representing insurance companies and large corporations.

I trust the Attorney General will look at this and give consideration to bringing it to a level that is more in keeping with the competence and the expertise we have on that bench, without demeaning in any fashion the judges of the Supreme Court.

Motion agreed to.

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

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

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading of Bill 18, An Act to amend the Justices of the Peace Act.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to indicate to the assembly that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I spoke with respect to second reading of the bill, very much concerned about the overhauling of the Justices of the Peace Act.

It is interesting to note that on the second reading debate the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) -- and I drew this to his attention some time ago -- stated in reply to all the comments made by my colleagues and other members of the assembly, "It would appear some of the members opposite were not in the House when I introduced this legislation, because I indicated clearly we were going to introduce a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act later this session.' That was clearly stated. I regret that some of the members were absent for that statement."

I refer anyone who may be interested now or in the future to page 209 of Hansard, March 29, when the Attorney General introduced the bill. There is no reference whatsoever in his statement to an introduction of a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act later this session. I knew the House would be interested in having that explanation for the degree of concern expressed by my colleagues in this party and others with respect to the bill.

Of course, that is entirely separate and distinct from what relations the Attorney General may have with the press. I understand he did indicate to the media he was going to introduce a complete revision of the bill, but he did not happen to include it in his statement to the House on that occasion. I knew the House would be interested.

Apart from that, and now knowing there will be a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act introduced to this assembly for consideration during this session, before the end of June, we are quite happy to agree to third reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member for Riverdale for pointing this out to me. I certainly had forgotten I had not read all of the statement that was prepared for me on that occasion. I apologize for the misstatement I obviously made to the House during second reading.

Motion agreed to.

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading of Bill 100, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we made extensive comments on second reading of this bill. I apologize, I may not have been here, so I ask my

colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who is keeping close tabs on statements made in and out of the House, did the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) say when he expected to see the new rules enacted, following the passage of this legislation?

Perhaps the Attorney General will make a statement on that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the new rules have been prepared and I think we will be able to distribute them in the very near future, so far as the profession is concerned. Obviously, there is going to be a very significant educational component required before Bill 100 is proclaimed, which may not be until later in the year.

Motion agreed to.

ARCHITECTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading of Bill 122, An Act to revise the Architects Act.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 123, An Act to revise the Professional Engineers Act.

On section 2:

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for Hansard. I believe I moved the amendment to section 2 and I was in the midst of concluding my remarks in relation to the amendment that had been moved. That is my recollection.

Mr. Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, if you look at Hansard on page 628, the minister had made his motion and his remarks. I had almost completed mine as well.

I will not rehash what had been brought before the House on the evening of April 10, other than to say the committee had unanimously made these amendments to the bill as a result of hearing the evidence from organizations that had been involved.

We accepted the view of the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers that these two amendments were reasonable in the circumstances. For a review of what has been said in Hansard, I refer members to page 629 and my observations that at the time the members for Oriole (Mr. Williams), Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) and Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie) were in favour of these amendments. Indeed, they were moved by the member for Oriole.

The amendments having been placed before the committee, we came to the conclusion this change was a reasonable and progressive one. We tried to sort out the differing attitudes between the organizations. The changes we accepted are the ones the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) now proposes to wipe out of the bill.

The bill was reported back to committee with unanimous support in the standing committee on administration of justice. The one subsection continued only because of an insurance plan and a requirement to deal with certain matters. That is the amendment to subsection 2(6).

It is, however, the amendment to the other subsection which is the more important one to refer to. In that item, that is to say subsection 2(5), we came to the conclusion that certain powers should be placed under a rein, under certain control, because it was felt that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, as the licensing body, should not be carrying on some of the general projects the service organizations should do in their educational and other aspects.

3:40 p.m.

That was the conclusion we reached, having heard the evidence. I recognize a strong approach has been taken by the APEO that this is an untoward restriction on it as a professional organization. They are of the view that they should not have this imposition. From their view of their responsibilities to the profession as a whole, that is understandable. They are upwards of 40,000 members strong and they have come to this view.

The CSPE, however, was persistent. We accepted its view that this was a reasonable situation that would set the tone of operations between the APEO and service organizations such as the CSPE and that it would be beneficial to the profession as a whole. I hope my colleagues on the committee would say I have represented in as balanced a way as I can the views the committee agreed upon.

I recognize this has been a lengthy situation, for which the Attorney General has had the responsibility of supervision and introduction, and that members of his staff have had much detailed work to do as they have attempted to sort out in Bills 122 and 123 the differing areas of concern, development and interaction of architects and engineers in Ontario. I congratulate the Attorney General for having the kind of quality in staff persons such as Mr. Fram and others who have lived with this legislation for a very long time. I am sure he and others are glad to see it proceeding through the House.

In no way do I quarrel with the attempt to sort out the variety of interests in the many professional organizations that have developed in the engineering field. While a person must be a member of the APEO, it is my understanding that all the other associations are voluntary. There are several dozen, depending upon a person's specialty, interest, location or whether or not he or she is an employee, in the teaching profession and so on. There are a great variety of interest organizations. Many members are involved in a half dozen or more, depending upon their particular interests.

We on the committee thought the licensing body in this instance should be seen quite clearly as separate from the variety of service organizations that exist, based on the interests of members. I hope the result of the debate this afternoon, even though it may not be referred to often by anyone in the future, will be to show that concern, so that there will not be any heavy- handed dealings between the groups and that they will involve each other in some goodwill for the future of their profession.

Those responsible officials in the APEO recognize the view of the committee that it should give a little to set the tone of operation of its profession. This would encourage the service organizations to do the kind of things we thought in that discussion they could do best. I hope that will be the end result of this exercise, that positions will not become hardened in either case and that co-operation for the good of this most important profession in our province will result.

Because of the comments made by the APEO and other contacts, the Attorney General has decided not to accept the amendments we have unanimously put forward. I find that regrettable. What we attempted to do would have been a suitable and useful balance. I hope the end result will still be for the positive development of this most important profession.

We will oppose the Attorney General's approach on these amendments. When a unanimous report comes from a committee of the House, having heard the evidence on a particular subject, I think it is worthy of acceptance by the House. I regret that is not happening in this instance. Having made that comment, however, all we can do is acknowledge the power of the government whip in this matter and be prepared to stand up in committee against the amendments proposed by the Attorney General.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the dénouement of the bill before the assembly, I did want to express as briefly as I can the concern I have about the amendments introduced by the Attorney General. I do so simply because I have a number of fundamental and basic concerns about professional associations in Ontario and the legislation governing them, which far predate this bill.

It is essential that the committee of the whole House understand what the standing committee on administration of justice was dealing with when Bill 123 was in front of it. The question of the governance of the professions in the province is one that will not go away. It is one that will haunt this assembly until such time as we get it straightened out.

The principle is simple, clear and fundamental. A body that is granted the exclusive jurisdiction to govern a profession by delegation from this assembly, such as the Law Society of Upper Canada or the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, has to understand very clearly there is no room for any confusion between the private interests of the members of that profession and the public duty and obligation imposed by this assembly in the grant of self-government and exclusive jurisdiction with respect to admission, governance and discipline.

I would not have assumed that fundamental point would have to be restated. I had assumed anyone who has looked at the question of professional organizations in Ontario would say the delegation, the privilege of self-governance and exclusive jurisdiction for admission to a body within the society from this assembly would mean the public interest, not the private interest, must always predominate.

It is surprising that professional men and women seem to be incapable of believing that what serves the private interests of individuals is not necessarily consistent with their public obligation. It needs to be restated time and again.

In my own profession I was shocked to receive a communication from the convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada at the time amendments to the Law Society Act were coming before the assembly. It said the society would be representing to the Attorney General that the legal profession be allowed to have its accounts paid by credit cards.

There may be some people who in some way can make an esoteric argument that it is in the interest of the clients of lawyers to be able to use their credit cards. I do not happen to believe that is other than a superficial and esoteric argument that has no standing. It was the private interest of that profession being put forward by the public governing body of that profession.

We have enough problems with this question of conflict of interest for members of professions, not only with respect to their governing bodies but with respect to the discharge of their professional obligations.

3:50 p.m.

In the standing committee on administration of justice, among other duties we were charged with during the recess of the assembly, we finished the question of the trust companies. We politely invited those who believed they had an interest in the white paper on trust companies to come before the committee. If there ever was a question of conflict of interest that had to be resolved, it needed to be resolved in front of the committee.

We heard nothing whatsoever from the Law Society of Upper Canada on the question; so we politely wrote and requested a response from them. We also requested their attendance before the committee. No one came before us. We did receive a lengthy reply from the undertreasurer of the society which said absolutely nothing.

This assembly will never know or understand what conflicts there might have been between public and private responsibility on the part of individual members of the profession in the discharge of their duties with trust companies. I refer to those members who were serving the various companies involved in this province's trust company fiasco.

Neither is there any indication whatsoever, in response to the white paper, the Morrison report and all the public concern expressed, that the law society is doing anything about this matter of conflict. There is no indication this governing body is taking action with respect to examining the conflicts of interest and the roles played by members of the legal profession within that esoteric world of the Greymac, Seaway and Crown Trust fiasco.

This comment is just a preliminary to my other brief remarks on this amendment proposed by the Attorney General. He is suggesting that in some way or other we should accept his deletion from the bill of clauses that were agreed to unanimously by the committee.

It is essential in all professional bodies in this province, such as the APEO, to be certain they can clearly distinguish between the public responsibility devolving on them by this act and the private interest of their individual members.

Where did the problem arise? It did not suddenly arise at the last minute in the hearings of the committee. The actual resolution of the problem took place on March 7. This was after we had heard all the representations, which were preceded by the report of the Professional Organizations Committee chaired by the former Deputy Attorney General. They also were preceded by the McRuer report of many years ago which dealt with the whole question of the governance of professional organizations. We were dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Over the years we have been working together, that committee has basically been operating on a nonpartisan basis. It has worked in a co-operative, intelligent way through the committee structure to produce the best bill we knew how to produce.

We heard all the concerns. We heard them not only in the leadup to the bill -- and the gestation period has been forever -- but during the time we heard the public presentations. It was very clear there were serious problems in the engineering profession. There were serious problems with respect to the disparate group the bill was attempting to cover by this one umbrella.

Probably the first occasion was when the Attorney General agreed to exclude something called the scientists from the purview of this bill. He did this even though many of the scientists were engaged in the very same work as professional engineers. We agreed with that as an interim solution. I and others expressed concern about how the whole question of the vast field covered by the engineering profession -- the scientific aspects of it as well as the applied aspects -- would be dealt with in future.

Within the profession itself we found a very diverse and distinctive number of groupings that over the years had come in conflict with their governing body even to the point where, regardless of the legal reason for doing so, which was put before the assembly, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario sued the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers because the CSPE was using the name "engineer" in advertisements, on letterheads and in publications. It had been reduced to a kind of confrontation whereby those problems could not be resolved.

All of us have had representations made to us by bodies within the association. The APEO, starting immediately after the committee hearing on March 7, if I may say so with great respect to the president of the APEO, sent a most intemperate letter to the Attorney General and a similar, relatively intemperate letter to the members of the assembly with respect to the way the committee had conducted itself.

We heard that representation. We have heard further representations from the CSPE, which has been in constant contact with members of the assembly over the years in anticipation of the problems that were surfacing within the professional body and which were being solved by the committee. There were no johnny-come-latelies. They did not suddenly appear on our doorstep to raise a question about which none of us was familiar.

My file, and I am sure so are the files of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the files of my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), is about several inches thick with information from the past two or three years, indicating the fundamental, basic concerns about divorcing within the professional organization of engineers the private interest pursuits of the members of that profession from their public obligations.

A number of criticisms were made before the committee. It all finally came up when we were dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee unanimously supported the amendment introduced by the member for Oriole, who I notice is not here today. There was support from the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, who was most co-operative and contributory throughout all the hearings of the standing committee on administration of justice, with comments by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor). I am sorry to say none of them is in the House today when this important matter is before us for consideration.

It was the member for Oriole who introduced the amendment. When I say that, it is not that the member for Oriole introduced an amendment out of the blue. It was the result of a discussion that went on during the morning of March 7 and during the recess at noon, as is often the case. There was an endeavour to pull the matter together in a way that would be acceptable to everybody.

The committee agreed to reopen section 2 of the bill which we had already passed, because the discussion had come up in an esoteric way under section 8, and to deal with this question. I personally thought by making the professional association aware of the extent and limitation of the powers being granted by the assembly the matter had been ended, as far as it was possible for us to do so, and that we had a successful solution to a difficult problem.

I have great respect for the advisers of the ministry who have worked for a long time on the bill. I do not believe for a single moment they are behind this impetus for the Attorney General to remove these clauses with respect to this bill.

4 p.m.

What we were trying to say as clearly as we were able to the professional organization was: "When you are exercising your functions you must look to your objects. You cannot go off on a frolic of your own. You cannot pretend somehow or other that you are a benevolent organization designed to further the private interests of the members, disguised as their obligation to perform their public duties."

The legalities of it are clear. The principal object of the association is spelled out in subsection 2(3). Subsection 2(4) is an elaboration of that principal object with the ancillary objects also put forward. We then simply said, as a warning to that association in the amendments the Attorney General now wants to delete, "It is not within the power of the association to provide a service for its members that is not related to the carrying out of the objects of the association."

We were very careful in subsection 2(6) not to upset what had been established and in existence, and we provided in subsection 2(6) that subsection 2(5) "does not apply in respect of a service that is provided by the association immediately before the coming into force of this act."

It may sound like legal jargon, legal semantics, legal gobbledegook or whatever one wants to call it, but I must say with great respect to the Attorney General that inherent in what he is proposing to this assembly to revoke -- those two amendments unanimously proposed by the committee -- is a failure on his part to understand that the professional organizations in Ontario have to understand they must serve the public interest and not the private interests of their members.

I do not know what is motivating the Attorney General. I was quite surprised to hear that he was going to take refuge in the fact that he was not present and it had not been settled behind the doors of the policy development branch with the professional advisers of the ministry. If only he had been there we, the members of the committee, would have seen the error of our ways. Certainly his partners on the back benches of the Tory party, with the enlightenment he would have brought to bear, would never have proposed such an amendment.

I do not know how he operates when it comes to pressure from those who have influence in the society. I do not know how it operates. In my judgement, he is making a serious mistake. The argument that in other legislation other professional associations have never been subjected to such innocuous restrictive language as we have proposed to signal, confer and bring to the attention of the engineers that they are there for the public interest and not for the private interest of the members, is irrelevant to any discussion of the professional engineers association in the light of the briefs that were before us.

There is no single governing body that has as many diverse applications as the engineers in that broad cloak. Everyone knows that among the most effective bodies is the Federation of Engineering and Scientific Associations. It has about 4,000 members, who are also members of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, a private body that serves and advances the interests of those members. We have the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers, whose very significant membership in Ontario also belongs to the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. Those are only two of the diverse organizations that came before us to give us their point of view; a number of others do not have the structure and the capacity to do it.

I want to say to the Attorney General, to you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of the assembly that we must perforce divide on this section of the bill and on the proposed amendment by the Attorney General simply because it is with a great degree of disappointment on my part that the Attorney General, being a professional man himself, seems unable to detach himself from the point of view that any professional organization with a public duty should not be serving the private interests of its members and that he does not understand the corollary capacity of all members of every profession to say that what is in the private interests of the members of the profession perforce, by the natural logic of events, must be in the public interest. Of course that is wrong, totally wrong, and totally improper.

In an expanding society such as that of Ontario, where these professional organizations are supposed to be models of self-government by way of delegation, with an exclusive jurisdiction with respect to admission, discipline, membership and other matters, I had thought we had got to the point where we might be able, by using as a model the ancient professions -- who have fallen far short in so many areas recently in their concept of what their obligation is -- to move judiciously and wisely to the grant of self- governing jurisdiction to other bodies, which are sometimes referred to as parabodies, that have mushroomed within the various professions.

Under this government, we are obviously a long way from that point of view. It is incomprehensible to me, after the hearings of that committee, with the experience we have had with the medical profession in many ways and with the legal profession in ways I have outlined, that when we give a grant of exclusive jurisdiction for self-governance to a professional body, that we should not clearly indicate we do not intend those bodies to serve the private interests of their members.

That is the principle. That is why we are going to divide on this bill. I am sorry this principle is immersed in what must appear to many members of the assembly to be a semantic game amongst legal draftsmen about clauses that may or may not have any influence as the world develops.

We will divide on the Attorney General's amendment to delete those subsections of section 2.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, as the only professional engineer who has had an opportunity to speak on this bill, perhaps I could influence some of the members opposite to reflect on their position before taking a final stance in the matter.

I guess it is of some significance to reflect on the number of engineers who actually enter into politics and go to the level of being in the provincial Legislature. In the last Legislature, I believe we had three engineers. Ted Bounsall from Windsor unfortunately did not make it in 1981; and the other engineer, of course, is the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Perhaps it reflects in some ways the difference between the thought process which engineers go through and that which we as politicians sometimes go through, and maybe in some ways this is how the standing committee on administration of justice perhaps reached the conclusions it did when it brought forward these amendments to section 2.

If I could perhaps throw off my other hat, after abandoning the engineering profession to some degree and studying law --

Mr. McClellan: How old were you when you got out of school? You must have been in your late 30s when you got out of school.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Actually, I was still in my 20s when I got out of school.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: These child prodigies sort of wane.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: It has been downhill ever since I became an engineer; I often say that.

4:10 p.m.

I think the members opposite have missed the essence of what the engineers of Ontario are saying to this Legislature. I know of no profession with which I have been in contact since becoming involved in politics that has complained less to me about matters than the engineering profession.

Mr. Haggerty: They do not trust you.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: They might not trust that member.

I know of no profession in our society that has gained as much trust as the engineers have. I have been a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario for some 20 years -- actually 18 years as a professional engineer, because I had to work as an engineer for two years before I qualified as a professional engineer. During that time, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario has spoken for me, has represented me as an engineer, and has done it well.

Mr. Renwick: What about the public?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I believe they have represented the public very well. I would like the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) to cite to me the number of times that he, in his capacity as a member over the past years, has been approached by a dissatisfied member of the public because of some breach of the public faith engineers have had in the past.

Frankly, I think it is unfair to compare the professional engineers with that other profession to which I belong, the legal profession.

Mr. McClellan: Now we are getting somewhere. Tell it like it is.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not want to have it both ways at all.

Mr. Stokes: You could not have made a better comparison.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I know I could not have made a better comparison. I would venture to say the degree of confidence of the public in the engineers would far outweigh the confidence it has in the other profession I profess to practise from time to time. To indicate that in the past engineers have gained the mistrust of the public is absolutely ludicrous.

I say to the other members that the thought process an engineer would go through in looking at this act would represent unfairness on the part of this Legislature. The professional engineers of Ontario have negotiated with this government in good faith for some eight years, through the Professional Organizations Committee, through various hearings, through negotiations with the Ministry of the Attorney General and through appearing at the committee.

I understand from some of the members of the committee that perhaps they did not carry their message through very well at the committee level. Perhaps that is typical of the profession, of my profession as an engineer.

Mr. Renwick: They did very well.

Mr. Haggerty: They did very well in committee.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: That is not the opinion of some of the people I have talked to. The results do not seem to indicate that, in my humble opinion.

I believe an engineer would look at this part of the act and consider it an insult to the profession, a profession that has put forward its best efforts in the past, has gained tremendous trust and has made a tremendous contribution to our province. I would think most engineers would look at this and ask, "What have we done as engineers to gain the mistrust of the Legislature, of the Ministry of the Attorney General and of the members of the Legislature to have this restriction placed on us when no other profession has it placed on it?" I am afraid the reasoning would be as simple, logical and straightforward as that.

Mr. Nixon: But your colleagues voted for it.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: It is unfortunate there were not more engineers on the committee.

However, it comes down to a straightforward argument. I believe that in the past the public interest has been served adequately and in a very professional manner by the professional engineers of Ontario. Quite frankly, as an engineer I want to deal with only one body. I think most engineers feel there are too many governing bodies and too many associations representing us all.

Mr. Nixon: And too many lawyers.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: They probably think there are too many lawyers too.

The fact of the matter is that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario has a damned fine record, to use engineering language, and I fully support the association. I believe this Legislature would be making a serious error by leaving these two sections in this bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, reiterating very briefly some of the comments my distinguished colleague has just made, I think comments have been made in this Legislature that reflect an attitude which, quite frankly, is not fair to the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing to demonstrate that they have not been very much guided by the fundamental principle of representing the public interest, which was mentioned by the member for Riverdale. There is no question that in dealing with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario over the past eight and a half years, starting with the Professional Organizations Committee, I and my colleagues in the ministry have found this group of distinguished professionals to be motivated at all times by a desire to serve the public interest. I think it is important to emphasize that.

The history as we know it would indicate that the association has withstood pressure from members within its group to expand the level of services provided to the members of the profession as opposed to carrying out its fundamental mandate of protecting the public interest.

As to how we viewed these amendments in the committee, I should say at the outset that I do appreciate the very dedicated work that was undertaken by the standing committee on administration of justice in relation to the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act. The decision to delete these amendments was not a decision that was arrived at lightly or without some very careful consideration because, as Attorney General for this province, I do respect very greatly the unanimous recommendations of any committee of this Legislature and the decision to disagree is not one that is arrived at lightly.

4:20 p.m.

I will not go into some of the unhappy history that apparently exists between the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers and the governing body, or at least some members thereof, notwithstanding the fact it was the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario that encouraged the creation of the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers.

There is no doubt that the APEO has understandably regarded these amendments as a vote of no confidence in the governing body by the members of the justice committee. I am not suggesting this was the intention of the justice committee when it passed these amendments, but certainly this has been the widespread interpretation in the engineering profession.

Certainly it is not our intention, given the very good record of this governing body, to indicate any such lack of confidence. Indeed, I have to state there is some question in the minds of my legal advisers as to whether the legal effect of the amendments is in any way consequential; indeed, they do not in our view, add anything to subsection 2(7), which provides the association the capacity and powers of a natural person only for the purpose of carrying out its objects.

So it can be argued that the sections being deleted, quite apart from their negative symbolic significance, really have no real legal significance; but of course this is a matter about which lawyers can and will disagree, and it does provide some potential for unnecessary litigation.

I do not think there is any question that the governing bodies of all of these professions have benefited to a great extent from the debate that has gone on in the justice committee and in this Legislature underlining the importance of these self-governing bodies in representing the public interest, and I am sure the unhappy differences of opinion that appear to have grown up between the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers and the governing body are issues that can be resolved in the future.

It is my intention to convene a meeting of these two bodies to see if we cannot perhaps bring a better understanding, I say with respect, and a greater degree of harmony to the relationship between the two bodies. There is no question, and I am confident because there is no doubt in my mind, given the history of the governing body, that this body is interested in an association separate and apart from the governing body that can provide the services essential to the members of the engineering profession.

Certainly the point has been made loudly and clearly that the members of the standing committee obviously have been impressed with the need for the growth of a strong engineering professional organization, and I have no doubt the governing body does recognize the need for such a body and will continue to encourage it.

But certainly, having reflected on this matter long and hard and bearing in mind the distinguished history of service as represented by the governing body, I think it would be most inappropriate at this time to pass amendments that are undoubtedly regarded as a vote of no confidence, a vote of no confidence that simply is not deserved when one looks at the history of this body.

Obviously, the members of this Legislature will have a continuing interest in the development of a more harmonious relationship between the governing body and any body that seeks to provide essential services to its members. We do have a responsibility as legislators who have exercised our mandate in creating these self-governing bodies. From that standpoint, as I have indicated, the debate has been a useful one and we have all learned from it.

In conclusion, I would not be introducing this amendment if I did not think it was clearly in the public interest.

5:11 p.m.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. McMurtry's motion that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out subsections 5 and 6 and by renumbering subsection 7 as subsection 5, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 54; nays 42.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Corporations Information Act which I am introducing today for second reading are necessary because another bill has been introduced before us this session. That other bill is Bill 5, An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations, which would remove the special licensing requirement for Canadian companies incorporated outside Ontario.

With the removal of licence requirements, all Canadian companies operating in Ontario would be treated equally. No longer would some companies need an extraprovincial licence. Bill 5 has been referred to the standing committee on administration of justice for further consideration. Given that this bill is complementary to that legislation, we proceed today.

Under the proposed Bill 6, which would remove all licence requirements, all Canadian companies operating in Ontario would be treated equally. No longer would some companies need an extraprovincial licence.

The major amendment proposed for the Corporations Information Act will take that concept of equal treatment one step further. All out-of-province companies would be required to file the same information with my ministry's companies division. In the case of federally incorporated companies, this would mean the filing of more information than is now required.

In addition to this change, the Corporations Information Amendment Act contains minor housekeeping changes.

The definition of extraprovincial corporations in section 1 conforms with that contained in the proposed Extra-Provincial Corporations Act.

Section 2 corrects a contradiction between this act and the Limited Partnerships Act, which permits the use of the phrase "limited partnership" in the style name of a corporation. The change would allow that phrase to be used in the Corporations Information Act.

Two other sections add references to a company's registered office as well as its head office to keep the legislation consistent with other corporation statutes.

Those are the changes proposed at this stage of the Corporations Information Act.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, I would like to add a few comments on this bill.

We have no problem with the legislation as such. The only concern I have is that the parliamentary assistant stated the passage of the other bill now rationalizes the need for the provisions of this act. The honourable member knows we have not passed the other bill; we have merely sent it to committee and we will be deliberating that bill there.

It is rather presumptuous on the part of any one of us to predict the outcome of a bill that is going to a committee of this Legislature tomorrow or Thursday for amendments and which will then come back to this House. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) made a very valid point when he said -- especially when we think of what happened to the bill we discussed in this Legislature a few minutes ago -- that sometimes what happens at the committee level does not change the way a bill is subsequently dealt with in the Legislature.

Another member just stated that even when some government members put their political reputation on the line voting for a particular bill, that bill may change when it comes back into this House. I do not think we should be so presumptuous as to state we already know the outcome of another bill which has not yet passed the committee stage in this Legislature and then use that to rationalize the need for this bill.

Having said that, we have no major problems with it. We understand some amendments will be moved later which will require corporations to make certain disclosures in Ontario. Our party has always been of the opinion that there should be legislation in this province requiring extraprovincial corporations to disclose when they own prime agricultural land in this province.

The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has spoken extensively about this in the past. We know of cases where people have completely evaded the foreign ownership land transfer tax by incorporating in this province with perhaps only one sole director in the company residing in Ontario and the moneys and the principal owners coming from elsewhere. We are concerned that even this new legislation will not stop this kind of thing from going on.

Apart from the fact the government is not receiving its full share of the foreign ownership land transfer tax, I for one believe we will have achieved a state of being a banana republic the day we have people who live outside of this country owning and running our farm land. I think that is beginning to be quite a cause for concern.

Three or four years ago in my own part of the province people from elsewhere were purchasing farm land. Again, I want to stress that I and my colleagues have no objection to anybody coming in from another country, moving here and buying farm land. That is not what we object to. As long as people reside here in this country and province they will contribute to our society and they should not be precluded from owning farm land. I do not think any one of us would advocate that.

However, we have very grave reservations about people who live outside of this country purchasing farm land and hiring people to run it for them. I see the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) in his seat at this moment. Having been involved in real estate matters, he would be very familiar with this kind of thing going on in the province. I regret the bill does not address that feature.

However, the amendment we will hear later has another concern which, in my view, does not solve the problem either. I do not believe we should ever pass laws in this province which require full disclosure from a farmer whose farm has assets worth more than $1 million. As members know, farmers are usually asset rich and money poor. It is quite common for a farm to be worth $1 million.

The amendment we will see later this afternoon requires full disclosure of everything that goes on in a farm with assets in excess of $1 million. I say we should hold on just a minute here because this starts to be really dangerous. The same principle would then also apply to small businesses that have assets or share capital in excess of $1 million. When one is dealing with other than farm land that does not happen quite as much because other businesses are not generally as capital intensive as farms are, although there are certainly very many exceptions to that rule.

I will be speaking further to the amendment the New Democratic Party is bringing forward. I have serious reservations that it would be extremely unfair to certain small business operators, especially those small business operators who require a large capital outlay in order to operate, and farmers are specifically affected by what we will be hearing in that respect.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it has fallen to me to speak to Bill 6, and I am pleased to do so. I do not want to take very long on second reading. I want to reserve most of my remarks for the debate when we get to committee of the whole House and I have the opportunity to move an amendment to section 4.

I should say, though, that I think this is an important debate. This is only the third time in about 12 or 13 years that the Legislature has had an opportunity to deal with the Corporations Information Act and specifically the corporate disclosure provisions of the Corporations Information Act.

There was a debate in 1972 in which all parties accepted some -- not all, certainly -- of the matters contained in the amendment I will be moving when we get to committee of the whole House. All three parties accepted amendments that would have required corporations to provide substantial information to the ministry, to be available in its offices on Yonge Street. All three parties accepted the principle in 1972. There was no vote necessary; it simply carried in the assembly, but it was never proclaimed into law by the government.

There was a second debate after I was elected, which was the last time the matter was before the House, in 1976. We had a very full debate during which a number of amendments were moved by the New Democratic Party. These would have required rather full and complete corporate disclosure by both extraprovincial corporations and corporations registered in Ontario.

We think this is a very important principle. Again, it makes more sense to discuss the specifics of our amendment and the rationale for the amendment when we get to committee of the whole House; otherwise, I am engaging in a second reading debate with respect to a matter that is not in the bill, and that would probably be ruled out of order. I do not want that to happen.

We are concerned, however, about section 4. There are some improvements with respect to information which extraprovincial corporations will be required to file with the ministry. First, I am confused about why extraprovincial corporations have had certain additional requirements placed upon them when corporations registered in Ontario are not bound by the same set of requirements. I do not understand why that distinction is maintained. That is one of the things we hope to address with our amendment.

5:30 p.m.

Second, the seven items of information set out in section 4 are, in our view, quite incomplete and still fail to give a very coherent sense of identity with respect to the corporation that files information in compliance with the terms of the bill once it has passed into law. I will wait until we get to committee of the whole House to try to flesh out that argument and concern and to be much more specific.

If the seven items set out in the bill under section 4 are passed into law, one will still have little idea -- in fact, one will have no idea -- who the beneficial owners of any corporation are. One will have no idea what the relationships are between one corporation and another. One will have no notion of interlocking directorates or any of the other myriad and complex relationships that characterize corporate economic life in this province.

It will remain true that all kinds of abuses and scams will remain possible because of the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the corporate entity in this province. Because we do not have disclosure laws and because we permit people to carry on with a veil of complete secrecy, all kinds of opportunities for the most spectacular scams still exist. I will speak more specifically about this concern when we get to committee of the whole House.

I hope we can have a debate on this important issue and that the government will be open to incorporating some additional amendments with respect to a broader notion of corporate disclosure. I understand the ministry has agreed to accept one rather modest proposal that was put forward. At any rate, I hope that is the case and that the ministry is prepared to accept as an addition to section 4 an eighth item of information, the name and office address of the attorney for service in Ontario.

Mr. Williams: The agent.

Mr. McClellan: Fine. That is helpful. Every little inch helps, but it does not get at the heart of the matter. Having said that, and obviously becoming somewhat repetitive, I will wait until we get to committee of the whole House before I pursue the argument in detail. I look forward to the debate at that stage.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) indicated, we have no real problems with this legislation as it stands, although I am still very much concerned that it does not require the disclosure of the names of the nonresident foreign owners who are buying up all our good agricultural land in this province.

Foreign nonresident ownership of agricultural land in Ontario is certainly not a new phenomenon. We in the Ontario Liberal Party, and I personally, have been concerned about this increasing trend for a number of years. We have tried to impress on the government the need for action in this area.

A major problem in getting the government to act, however, has been that one cannot solve a problem if one will not first acknowledge the existence of the problem. This government will not acknowledge that much of our good agricultural land is passing into the hands of nonresident foreign owners.

I wonder whether the government would become somewhat concerned if it were suddenly to find that it was the Kremlin which was buying all our good land in this province. The fact of the matter is it does not know because the information does not have to be disclosed under existing legislation, or we have weak legislation requiring the disclosure of nonresident ownership of our good farm land.

As far back as 1973, a select committee of the Ontario Legislature on economic and cultural nationalism recommended to the government in its report on foreign ownership of Ontario real estate that "future acquisition of land by individuals, including agricultural land and the opportunity to farm in Ontario, should be restricted to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants residing in Canada."

Needless to say, this recommendation was rejected outright by the government. A government member on that committee, who later became the Minister of Agriculture and Food, was the one dissenting vote on that recommendation.

On December 15, 1978, I asked the former Minister of Agriculture and Food whether he was aware of the widespread and serious concern about block purchases by foreign investors of agricultural land in Ontario. I also asked if it was true that foreign interests were circumventing the land transfer tax by forming Ontario corporations and whether he would undertake a survey of current foreign ownership of rural lands in Ontario and monitor all new land transfers. This request, however, was rejected. It was only pursuant to my private member's bill in 1979, which would have required the registration of all foreign-owned land in Ontario, that the province introduced its own act on December 1, 1980.

The government's interim report of October 1981 indicated that only 48,000 acres were foreign controlled. In November 1982 the Liberal Party released details of corporations and individuals who were able to circumvent the government's registration legislation as well as the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Those details involved 3,585 acres of farm land in Huron and Bruce counties alone. These parcels were discovered through investigations at local land registration offices. They represented only a fraction of the sales that had occurred throughout the province unknown to the government. In those sales alone a total of $846,000 in land transfer tax had been circumvented.

We were provided with another interim report in December 1982 that, in our opinion, clearly demonstrated the need for the government to become serious about this problem and to come to terms with this very disturbing trend. While the government continued to downplay the significance of the problem, we were told that nonresident ownership in the province had increased by more than 100,000 acres since the previous year.

On May 24, 1983, the government brought in for second reading a bill to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, which was to ensure that a nonresident may not avoid the 20 per cent rate of tax imposed on conveyances of land. Unfortunately, while this amendment plugged the loophole, there is still no means of ensuring that nonresidents forming Ontario companies to purchase lands will register under the Nonresident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act. We believe this can be ensured only by an amendment to the Corporations Act to the effect that land companies with nonresident ownership must first register under the Non-resident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act before they file under the Corporations Act.

Moreover, we have seen in cases we have documented that the individual who was acquiring the land for other unknown buyers will not have to pay the 20 per cent land transfer tax in the future since he has now become a landed immigrant. He has established a host of numbered companies into which he will amalgamate future land purchases. These companies in reality represent the shares that are owned by the true nonresident investors.

This legislation, however, was merely another example of a government that will act on a problem only after it becomes painfully obvious to all that a situation no longer can be tolerated and is so controversial that the government must be seen to be doing something.

In fact, it was as far back as 1974, when the land transfer tax was first announced, that the government said: "Where a nonresident acquires control of a corporation which owns land in Ontario, this will be deemed to be a transfer of land and the tax will apply." The government, however, never chose to introduce this section of the bill at that time for whatever reason.

5:40 p.m.

The government's latest registration report of March 31, 1983, indicates that 165,476 acres of agricultural land are foreign-owned. However, these figures must also be questioned since the extent of these purchases has never been seriously or completely investigated by the government. The true purchasers of this land are unknown and the details of the purchases continue to be denied to us.

For example, the government's latest figures indicate that Bruce county contains 9,146 acres of foreign-owned land. However, the latest figures compiled by the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture indicate the problem is much more widespread, with 14,550 acres foreign-owned.

The sad truth of the matter is that the government has never been serious about discovering the true extent of this problem. Only when the true figures on the extent and concentration of nonresident ownership are known can public policy on the question be debated intelligently.

In conclusion, this legislation does not provide for disclosure of the names of those nonresident foreign owners who have had somebody in this province act on their behalf. There are foreign corporations, many of them numbered corporations, and they are not required to register under the land registration act. A company is not required to register the true owners under existing legislation. This is where I think this legislation could be amended.

In the case of numbered company which we investigated on the question of foreign ownership, all public documents led to the name of Tikal and Associates. This is a law company acting for the true foreign investors. However, existing legislation does not require this information to be disclosed. The government merely relies on the companies themselves to register under the Non-resident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act if they are controlled by foreign interests.

I repeat that the true owners are not disclosed. As previously suggested, I believe this can only be accomplished by an amendment to the Corporations Act. Such an amendment would require land companies with nonresident owners to first register with the Non-resident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act before they file under the Corporations Act.

I hope the minister might take this into consideration. I consider this a very serious problem -- the gobbling up of our good agricultural land by nonresident foreign owners who are using it only for speculative purposes. They buy the land sight unseen; they do not come over to farm it. We have no objection to foreigners coming to this country, buying the land, farming it and competing with our own farmers. However, we do object to the money coming over from other countries and being invested in our good farm land. This does nothing more than make tenants out of our own Canadian people. This is exactly where we are heading if this is allowed to continue.

It reminds me of the old days in England when a few landlords owned all the land and the rest were peasants farming that land. What we are doing now is relegating future generations of young people in this country to the role of nothing more than tenant farmers. It is going to be very difficult to get this land back from the foreign owners.

I ask the minister to give this matter serious consideration. If he could think of an appropriate amendment that would require disclosure of the names of the nonresident foreign owners, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. It would satisfy many of the rural people, particularly the farmers who are very disturbed about what is going on in rural Ontario as far as agricultural land is concerned.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the input on Bill 6 from members of the official opposition and of the third party this afternoon. I am also looking forward to discussing some of these concerns as we move into committee of the whole House after the dinner hour to talk about some of the specifics.

With regard to the initial observations made by the member for Prescott-Russell, I have to point out that I share the same concerns he put forward this afternoon as to why we are proceeding with Bill 6 while the fathering bill, if you will, Bill 5, is in one of the standing committees.

I have to make it clear and put it on the record that I did speak to the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), because I thought he was carrying the legislation this afternoon. I suggested to him that it might be more appropriate to stand down Bill 6 until Bill 5 was reported back to the House, so this could be dealt with at that time. I think it is clearly recognized that Bill 6 is a companion bill to Bill 5. I concur completely with what the member has stated.

However, while the member for Kitchener was agreeable to that type of arrangement, I asked the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) -- again I apologize, because I assumed the member for Kitchener was carrying the legislation this afternoon -- whether he also felt it would be appropriate to stand down Bill 6 until Bill 5 had been dealt with in committee and reported back to the House. The member for Riverdale indicated his caucus -- I assume he was speaking on behalf of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) as well -- was anxious to proceed with this legislation.

It was not for me to oppose that wish or desire, although it does present that inconsistency. It appears to be putting the cart before the horse. It was not done at my behest but rather to accommodate the request of the members of the third party. I agree with what was said.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member is aware that the order of business is designated by the government House leader. He brings his suggested order of business to the House leaders' meetings, which I have the privilege to attend, and the decisions are made there.

No druthers were expressed on the part of this party with respect to Bill 5 and Bill 6. We were presented with a request from the government to proceed with Bill 6, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is our practice not to deviate from the order of business as announced by the government House leader to suit the whims of ministers or parliamentary assistants.

We are very co-operative. I resent the suggestion that somehow we are gumming up the order of business. I am rather sensitive on this point. The order of business was selected by the member's House leader. If he has a problem with it, he can take it up with him.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have unintentionally touched a nerve. I am not here to debate that issue. I am simply pointing out the sequence of events that transpired behind the scenes. I spoke to the government House leader about deferring Bill 6, but it was not without speaking first, as a matter of courtesy, to the members of the two parties who are carrying the bill in opposition. When that was not agreed upon, it could not be taken up with the House leaders for the respective parties. I will not pursue the matter further. I just wanted to clarify the point for the member for Prescott-Russell.

I also want to touch on some of the matters mentioned by the member for Bellwoods. He commented on the intent and purpose of introducing amendments to the bill that will be dealt with in the committee of the whole House. In setting out a preamble to that, the member for Bellwoods implied that historically there has been great support for the type of legislation they will be introducing in committee of the whole House. I am not quarrelling or taking issue with the member for Bellwoods in some of the historical fact he stated here this afternoon, but perhaps he did not take the point far enough.

5:50 p.m.

I will be glad to discuss the historical events that have led up to where we are today because, while he did speak about where we were in 1971 and what happened in 1972, suggesting there was unanimous support of all parties in the House, and I do not quarrel with that, he has somehow overlooked what has transpired more recently.

I think there was a parting of the ways between the two opposition parties after 1972, as the members of the third party pursued this particular philosophical debate. I think that is where we will be this evening as we get into committee of the whole House and return to the discussions of 1972 and 1973 as well as those of 1982 and 1983.

Mr. McClellan: Where is John Clement when we need him?

Mr. Williams: Where is John Clement when we need him? I have some questions to ask him as well.

In any event, I think we have to fully develop and talk about the history of the earlier legislation to understand the situation. I hope to be able to elaborate further upon the historical comments made by the member for Bellwoods.

In the few moments left to me, and summing up on my general observation so we can conclude before the dinner hour and perhaps agree to proceed in committee of the whole House this evening, let me say that I appreciate the concerns expressed by the member for Prescott-Russell and the member for Huron-Middlesex. I know the farm land issue has been of great concern to them, but I must stress that it has been a concern not only of the official opposition or the third party but of the members on this side of the House as well.

In fact, while the member for Huron-Middlesex was suggesting in his comments that this government has done nothing with regard to dealing with that issue, he was reciting chapter and verse all the legislative initiatives we have taken in this Legislature to deal with foreign ownership of land. He could not have recited them in a more accurate way than he has this afternoon.

Mr. Riddell: It is show-window legislation. It is not stopping foreign owners from not disclosing, and it is not stopping them from circumventing the land transfer tax. We know it and the member knows it.

Mr. Williams: I appreciate the member for Huron-Middlesex suggesting the legislative initiatives taken have not been adequate. But I guess that is where we probably part company.

In the initiatives taken to date through the consultative process with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory), dealing both from a revenue point of view and from the whole principle involved here, we have taken realistic legislative measures to tighten up the situation as it relates particularly to farm land. While the official opposition members suggest otherwise, I think some of the information they have cited here this afternoon suggests otherwise.

In acting upon the member's suggestions, I will reflect over the dinner hour upon some of the points he made. However, I am not persuaded that this particular legislation really is designed to deal with the particular issue the two members put forward this afternoon.

I have to point out again, to put the whole debate into perspective, that this particular bill, although it is now in a position of preceding Bill 5, is complementary to Bill 5. I must remind members of the Legislature that Bill 5 deals with extraprovincial corporations. It was within that narrow context that Bill 6 was designed to accommodate the fulfilment of the measures outlined in Bill 5 and nothing more.

While the members of the third party in particular want to expand the debate to deal with corporation law in general, we have to remember and understand that Bill 6 is designed to deal specifically with the matters in Bill 5, which will be under discussion this Thursday in the justice committee, and that is specifically with extraprovincial corporations.

That brings me back to the points raised by the member for Huron-Middlesex, who also suggests the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act is designed specifically and primarily to deal with land holdings and identification of the beneficial owners of land. That legislation is designed to deal with three other issues that are independent and separate from the matter of ownership of land per se.

One is to record corporate information of companies incorporated outside Canada that want to come to Ontario to do business. We require certain basic corporate information; obviously, the legislation is not going to provide the depth of information the members of the third party feel is relevant and germane with regard to extraprovincial corporations.

The second aspect of Bill 5, which I know is a matter of great concern to the member for Riverdale, is to facilitate legal proceedings in dealing with the service of documents. He spoke about that at some length the other evening. We will be dealing with that issue again in committee and when it comes back into this House.

The third and least important reason, but it is of some importance to us as a government, is that it provides a modest generation of revenue.

Those are the three major ingredients of the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act and why we are bringing it up to date to make it more relevant to the times. It is not a bill designed to deal with the issues of concern to the members of the official opposition or to the issue of the ownership of land, the concern of the third party. That debate is related to other legislation that was dealt with in the past in this Legislature and undoubtedly will be dealt with again. These two bills are not directed towards those concerns.

I felt it important to put into perspective what Bill 6 is all about and how it is directly related to Bill 5. Bill 5 in itself is in a much narrower framework than what the members, in particular those from the third party, are addressing this afternoon and evening. For that reason we probably will not be supporting the major amendment my colleague the member for Bellwoods has been kind enough to furnish for my consideration. We are getting into broad issues that are outside the intent of this legislation.

Noting the hour, I will conclude my general remarks at this time so we can proceed into committee of the whole House this evening.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

April 24, 1984