Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the document I have in front of me with respect to security provisions in this building is dated February 6, 1980. I do not know whether it is the latest one or not. Outside this building, there are about 125 members of the Union of Injured Workers who have come to express to this assembly their concern about some of the matters touching upon their welfare in a very real way.

I went outside in order to speak with some of my friends there and I was astounded to hear that some edict had come forth that only 20 members of that organization would be permitted into the galleries of this assembly. ln their discussion about that edict, they very wisely decided that they would be able to come into this assembly either all together as a group in their capacity as citizens of this province or in their individual capacities as citizens, but they would not allow a selection process to be imposed upon them by which only 20 could come into the House.

I recognize, as does every member of the assembly, the importance of the security provisions of this Legislature. Nobody underestimates that. It is not some selfish concern for our individual personal safety; it is a fact of life at this time. But these men and women do not belong to some kind of group that this assembly should exclude from an opportunity to be in this assembly when the House is in session.

Surely either the whips of the three parties, the House leaders of the three parties or you, sir, at a convenient time, with your staff and with the representatives of the security group, could arrange, for example, for each member of this assembly to sign two of the slips that we have for admission to the gallery and be the host to one or two of the citizens of the province who are outside this assembly.

On the other hand it may be that in your discretion you could in these circumstances raise the edict and, with the usual admonition that people in the galleries are not allowed to participate, simply permit those citizens, who have a very real sense of a desperate social condition that needs redressing and can be redressed only by this assembly, the opportunity to be with us in this chamber as members of the public.

I would ask that an immediate solution be found to this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I do not want any honourable member to lose perspective on the statements the member for Riverdale has made. In actual fact, I received a phone call after one o'clock this afternoon asking for permission for a group to attend question period. I immediately checked with the tour guides to see how many visits had been previously scheduled.

We have no objection to members of the public coming in and attending on the House; I want to make that very clear. I also want to make it very clear that it has nothing to do with security. That was not the reason the decision was made. It was made purely on the basis of accommodating those people who had made previous arrangements. I think if people want to attend this building, they have to take their chances on getting in, in accordance with the previous arrangements that have been made.

I thought it was fair, after having determined the number of visitors we were going to have or expected to have, that 20 was a reasonable figure. It had nothing to do with security, it had nothing to do with the people involved; it was purely a personal judgement in the matter of accommodation -- strictly.

Ms. Copps: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I too had the opportunity to meet with the workers outside and I might add that not only were they not allowed to come into the building as private citizens but even the leaders and spokesmen for the group were at first refused admittance into the building. I might point out that justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.

When you suggest there are only 20 spots in the gallery, obviously it is for those injured workers to take their chances about the possibility of seating. But when you have a ring of police officers and security officers preventing the admittance of even one in two of their major spokesmen into the building, then you can understand why these workers are concerned and why they feel that their rights as private citizens have been abrogated.

As the representative of the riding of Hamilton Centre, I feel that if I have constituents who happen to be among that group who would like to see me in my capacity as a legislator it is not for the Speaker to decide that they cannot enter the building out of consideration for seating capacity. Obviously the representatives themselves must take their chances, like everyone else in the public gallery. Nevertheless, what has been seen by those workers is a government that not only refuses to allow an increase to which they are justly entitled but will not even open its doors to allow their case to be heard by individual members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let me make it very clear that it was not a decision of government in any way, shape or form. The people who were outside were engaged in a demonstration. Our security people have instructions on how to handle that type of occasion. They were quite within their rights in doing what they were doing.

If people want to come in to visit their members or anybody else, or to sit in the galleries as individuals, there is nothing to stop them, nothing at all. But we will not allow demonstrations of any kind inside this building.

2:10 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order --

Mr. Speaker: No. I think it has been dealt with and it really was not a point of order. I think you all know the rules.

Ms. Copps: As I understand it, the person who was responsible for not admitting those people was acting at the discretion of the Speaker and on the instructions of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It may come as a complete surprise to you, but I do have jurisdiction and authority over the security in this building. Having said that, all the rules are available to each and every member on a typewitten sheet, as they are available to our security people. There is no secret.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, do you intend to deal with my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think I have dealt with it. We are not stopping people in any way from attending this building or from attending on individual members. As I said, I made my decision to limit the numbers having regard for the spaces that I felt would be available to accommodate them. It is as simple as that. It had nothing to do with security. It had nothing to do with the group itself. I want to make that very clear.

Mr. Renwick: I accept your decision, sir, and I understand the communication that you and I are having on the issue. Since we sit for many hours every day of the week in this assembly with nobody in the galleries, would it be possible for me to request you to reconsider your decision in the light of this discussion?

Mr. Speaker: Maybe I did not make myself very clear. I said there is nothing to stop individuals attending this building, either to see members or to sit in the galleries, or whatever. It is a public building. There is nothing to stop that at all. I made my decision on the basis of prior arrangements for accommodation. It is as simple as that.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, since my undertaking in the House on November 4 to make a fuller statement about my course of action in respect of the Cadillac Fairview sale of rental properties, a great deal has occurred which has undoubtedly influenced public opinion and the opinion of many members of this Legislature.

At the outset, I think I should say that the use of the term "Cadillac Fairview sale" is somewhat unfair to that company, as the problems with which I wish to deal do not arise so much from the sale by that company as from the subsequent resales. However, the series of transactions has been identified in the media by that name and, for convenience, I will continue to describe it in that way.

The most upsetting development, in my opinion, was the resale of the Cadillac Fairview properties, not once but twice, and each time with substantial amounts of refinancing being involved. In singling out this aspect of the developments since November 4, I do not intend my words to be taken in any way as meaning that I do not attach a great deal of concern to the possible effect these sales could have on the rents and therefore on the tenants in these buildings. This obviously is a matter of paramount concern to me, and I will be addressing it presently, but what I want to emphasize in my initial comments is the very real challenge we face in our efforts to administer the rent review process equitably.

Some of the media, in commenting on the sale, have spoken about a loophole in the rent review process. This conclusion is based, I believe, on a lack of understanding of the basis on which the rent review program was established. Nowhere is there any provision within the Residential Tenancies Act that suggests it was also intended to prohibit the sale of rental properties. Nor am I aware of any endorsement of that idea by any political party or municipal politician prior to the sudden demand for its application to the Cadillac Fairview sale.

To the contrary, it has been my experience, especially in talking to representatives of tenant groups, that the justification put forward for maintaining the guideline at six per cent -- a figure which, I might add, speakers on all sides of this House have found at one time or another to be too low -- was that the landlord was accumulating profit in the form of capital gain in the appreciating value of the property. If this argument has any validity, it is obvious that the only way such accumulated profit can be realized is if the landlord sells the property.

I am sure the members opposite are well aware of the fact that the Residential Tenancy Commission does not allow a landlord to pass on to his tenants any costs associated with an increase in a mortgage which is designed simply to remove the accumulated increase in equity from the building. In this regard I would remind the House that mortgaging out an equity, as it is called, has been a common practice in the administration of rental units since long before we introduced rent review.

I am also sure that after the lengthy and careful review of the bill in 1979, carried out, need I remind the House, by a committee and a Legislature in which the opposition had the majority of members, it cannot now be said that this aspect of the administration of rental units was overlooked. Rather I would suggest to the House that the sale of rental properties was to be allowed as a legitimate commercial practice. The very fact that there have been many hundreds of rental buildings sold in the years since the Residential Tenancies Act was introduced without any suggestion that the sales be set aside or prohibited, is evidence that such sales were not objectionable in and of themselves.

There is a need, therefore, to look beyond the Cadillac Fairview transaction to the broader issues involved. For example, let us remember that many people in this province have, as part of their retirement planning, invested in rental buildings which they operate or have operated for them. Some are dependent on the income stream for their livelihood and many of them may very well wish at some time to sell their interest and use their capital in some other way. This has been an accepted part of the investment activity in the province for years and it is not one that we should now sweep aside in our haste to protect a particular group of tenants in a specific situation.

My understanding of the function of the Residential Tenancies Act is that it was intended to prevent unfair increases in rents during what has now become an extended period of shortage in the rental accommodation market. Unfortunately, in our economic system it is extremely difficult to create artificial restraints in some areas without causing some other unwanted effect elsewhere.

In the case of the control of rental housing, we now have a situation where the return on this form of investment is less, and in many cases much less, than can be earned in other markets. Conversely, a higher rate of return can be earned with far less risk and effort in many areas of investment than is possible through the ownership and management of rental properties. This has, I believe, resulted in the market value of rental buildings being depressed, particularly in the short run.

This is another way of saying that investors who are looking for a reasonable and immediate return on their investment will not be attracted to our rental real estate market. However, as we have now seen, there are foreign investors who are looking for longer-term return on their investment in a place of certain political and economic stability, and who are apparently attracted by the rental market in Ontario.

It is in the context of this much larger issue of housing supply and management in Ontario that we must look at the Cadillac Fairview sale. It is mindless simply to demand that a sale be stopped or that rents be frozen. The provision of housing is a large and important industry in Ontario and unless the members opposite are advocating that the government turn the provision of housing into some gigantic public utility run by the government, then they too have an obligation to propose solutions to the present situation that recognize the role played by investment by the private sector.

We on this side of the House wish to keep as much of the housing stock as possible in this province in the hands of private individuals. This may require us to make what, at the moment, may be less popular decisions than those that the members opposite are inclined to make, safe in the knowledge that they will never be in a position of having to implement them or to bear the ultimate consequences of them. My approach --

Interjections.

An hon. member: You've got them going, Bob.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have them going.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: My approach to the problems created by the Cadillac Fairview sale is based on the belief that any solution must be fair to both tenants and landlords and that it must prevent the present market situation in Ontario from becoming a happy hunting ground for fast-buck speculators. In doing so, I must admit that we are attempting to reconcile various interests that are and will be very difficult to reconcile. I do not have all the answers nor am I aware of anyone else who does. The suggestions to date from the members opposite clearly demonstrate that they have the same problem.

Turning to the specific steps I will be taking in the short term, I would like to relate them to different types of problems that have been identified as a result of the Cadillac Fairview sale.

1. The greatest public concern over these sales is the potential impact on rents that may arise out of the cost pass-through of the profits taken out of these properties. To ensure that there will not be an inequitable pass-through of these profits, I propose to do two things.

First, I will be introducing a rent restraint bill that will cover the present situation until a more detailed and thoughtful solution can be put in place. This bill will provide that the maximum rent increase attributable to a pass-through of financing costs arising out of a sale of rental property will be limited to five per cent during the term of the bill.

The bill will also suspend the application of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act that provide for the apportionment of a rent increase among the various rental units in a rental complex, again for the period of action of the bill. This will further assist in avoiding excessive rent increases. It is proposed that the bill apply to all applications to the Residential Tenancy Commission made after October 31, 1982.

Second, I wish to announce that the Residential Tenancy Commission has developed a number of new guidelines that are being distributed today for use by commissioners immediately. Included in the new guidelines are the following:

(a) Where a rent increase is based on increased financial costs arising out of a sale of the rental property, the cost pass-through to the tenants may be spread over five years instead of the three-year period now being used.

(b) Where a landlord's cost recovery is spread over a period of years, the interest charges on the costs not covered by rent increases may be disallowed as a financial cost.

(c) Where a residential complex is resold within three years of its acquisition, the increased costs arising out of the resale may be deferred until the increase in costs arising out of the first sale have been built into the rent, but in no event shall the costs arising out of any resale be built into the rent within three years of the immediately preceding sale. For the purposes of this guideline, a sale includes the transfer of a right to buy the residential complex.

2. As I indicated earlier, the proposed rent restraint bill is intended to be an interim measure to deal with the immediate situation until we can find a more permanent solution. In order to provide the widest possible input into the process of finding better solutions to the current problems of our housing market, I wish to announce that Stuart D. Thom, QC, formerly the treasurer and now a lifetime bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, will be appointed to conduct an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.

The commissioner will have broad terms of reference to look into the application of the existing laws to the regulation of rents and to make recommendations on changes that will eliminate or reduce any of the inequities that have been found in the present system.

Once again, I would emphasize that the purpose of this review is not to find ways to advantage either landlords or tenants, but rather to come up with the most equitable set of rules for the control of rents and related problems as is possible. I have asked the commissioner to make his report at the earliest possible date and have encouraged him further to bring forth interim reports and recommendations during the course of his review so that the government may act on his advice without undue delay.

The first of two areas of particular concern to me on which I believe an interim report would be helpful is the problem of taking into account the effect of rent increases that have been granted to cover costs that are incurred over only a short period of time. If a particular cost that has justified a rent increase ceases to exist, then there should be a procedure by which this change in circumstances can be taken into account and, in appropriate cases, the rent reduced accordingly.

The second area of particular concern to me is the absence of a registry of rents. So long as no one can adequately track the rent changes from tenant to tenant, it is extremely difficult to determine whether the six per cent limit on rent increases made by a landlord alone has been honoured.

I would like the commissioner to give early attention to steps that could be taken to permit the use of section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act. This section provides for such a registry, but members may recall that it was not proclaimed as the enforcement provisions relating to it were affected by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the validity of the act.

In the expectation that we will be able to introduce comprehensive legislation no later than the fall of 1983, the proposed rent restraint bill will be sunsetted to expire on December 31, 1983.

3. At the same time as the commissioner is reviewing the current rent review legislation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be carrying out a thorough analysis of the overall housing market and examining conditions prevailing in both rental and private housing areas.

It is imperative that all of Ontario's citizens be treated equitably, whether they are renters or home owners, and therefore all aspects of housing must be examined. The ministry will present the commissioner with its findings on the relationship of the market to the rent review process, together with its recommendations for improving the availability of housing, private and rental, multiple and single unit.

The issue is a complex one, with each segment of the housing market relating directly to the next, and with all three levels of government involved. Because of this, the state of the rental housing market cannot be viewed in isolation, neither in isolation from the rest of the housing market, nor in isolation from the role the federal government has played and must play.

4. An additional question arising out of the Cadillac Fairview sale which I must address myself to because of my responsibilities for loan and trust companies and also because of its impact on the eventual level of rents that may be justified by the sale, is the question of the value of the properties for mortgage purposes.

Under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, an Ontario trust company may not lend money by way of mortgage where the property providing security for the loan is mortgaged to more than 75 per cent of its value. I am sure that many members have read or have heard the various media accounts that have speculated on this question of value. Several persons identified as experts in the field have given somewhat divergent views on what the value of these properties really is.

As this is a matter of considerable importance to the administration of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, I have, pursuant to my powers under section 152 of that act, appointed James A. Morrison, of the firm of Touche Ross, to make a special examination and audit of the books, accounts and securities and to inquire generally into the conduct of the business of the several trust companies involved in providing mortgages for the Cadillac Fairview sale. In accordance with the provisions of section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, Mr. Morrison will have the powers of a commission under part II of the Public Inquiries Act for the purpose of his examination audit and inquiry.

To provide the necessary legal assistance in the process, the law firm of Fraser and Beatty has been retained as counsel. As the findings of this review may have some impact on the most recent sale and on the assessment of the rent review process in general, I will be referring the report made by Mr. Morrison to the commissioner, Stuart D. Thom, for his consideration.

In respect of this review, I would like to say that some of the companies involved in this series of transactions have offered to provide us with their full co-operation and I do not expect the section 152 review to be a lengthy matter.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize again that we are not dealing with a simple problem that lends itself to easy solutions. I sincerely hope we can arrive at solutions that do not compromise the interests of both the tenants and the landlords in ways that may not be acceptable to either.

Our goal is to come out of the various reviews that I have just outlined with recommendations for improved legislation that will enable both small and large landlords to manage their properties fairly and with a reasonable return on their investments, while at the same time ensuring that the tenants are fairly treated by the process.

Ideally we will also be able to maintain a market for rental real estate that will be attractive to investors and that does not depend for its success on the taking of large short-term profits or on the imposition of sudden and massive increases in rent.

Ontario has always been an equitable society within which people could live and pursue their own lives as well as a safe and profitable place for investment. In my opinion this is a balance that we must preserve.

2:30 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: Why are the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the Treasurer (Mr F. S. Miller) not applauding the minister, Mr. Speaker? It is, of course, the typical government response: a little temporary legislation and a royal commission; but here we have three or four royal commissions looking further into this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious that in response to any question I ask the minister he will say that he is studying it or that someone he has appointed will be studying it over some period of time. But he does not appear to have addressed the major issue that caused this whole dispute in this House, and that is the circumstances surrounding the deal itself, the so-called Cadillac Fairview deal.

The minister is aware, for example, that today Alderman Sewell has pointed out some very serious discrepancies in the affidavits that were filed with respect to the Bulk Sales Act, once on November 1 and again on November 3, in court-filed documents quoting a price on two different occasions: one is $270 million and one is $500 million. He is aware also, and he has admitted it, that one Mr. Rosenberg --

Mr. Bradley: Who?

Mr. Peterson: Leonard Rosenberg -- has misled him to some extent in this situation. Does he not feel that he has an obligation to look into all the details of this deal while he is looking into these various other matters?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, I did not say that I was misled; I said the member could draw his own conclusions from the remarks I made. Second, I think it should be apparent that it is not a matter of this minister or this government choosing a royal commission because there is any expedience involved. Quite frankly, under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, I, as the minister, have an obligation to see that the terms and requirements of that act are lived up to. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting there is something improper in my doing that, then I think he needs further advice on that issue.

Also, if the member thinks the measures that have been proposed through guidelines and through the bill are not significant measures, then I suggest he talk to some of the landlords and owners of property who, because of his resolution in the House, he has had write to us all on this side about it. All right. Very frankly, if he does not think the issue of the adequacy of the rent review legislation we have in this province, and the conflicts that existed as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting part of it, warrant a nonpolitical review, then I have to wonder why he wants it reviewed.

Mr. Peterson: I asked the minister about Mr. Rosenberg, and I gather he does not want to answer that question.

An hon. member: Ah.

Mr. Peterson: Well, the Rosenberg brothers have done a lot for this government.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware of, and has he investigated, the spread of this cancer into other areas? Is he aware that there have been other major purchases in Kitchener and in London that the government's friends, or at least the principals at Kilderkin Investments, are involved in, and that it appears again that there is foreign money going into those particular areas? So the problem is not isolated to Toronto only. Is he investigating those purchases?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me just review what I have said on previous occasions. What has concerned and distressed many of us in this House has been the large size of this sale and the fact that there were two transactions that took place in addition to the A to D sale.

The Leader of the Opposition and I both know, as do other members of the Legislature, that buildings will be sold in this province today, tomorrow and from now on. I do not think it is the job of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to sit on every deal in the province to check it out. The parties have obligations to make sure that the terms are appropriate.

An hon. member: What a cop-out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If my friend does not think those who are involved in quick flips have a very clear message from this government and from this minister today as a result of my statement, then he had better read it again, because I have to tell him that it imposes very severe restraints on those resales.

Mr. Rae: The minister is fast becoming an expert on quick flips.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That's an old line from Ottawa, Bob.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You wore that out in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Throw them another fish, Alan.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The circus is open.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You're dragging out the old chestnuts.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The circus is back in place, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The lion trainer is after me, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the minister to turn to page 7 of his statement. I would like to ask the minister for clarification of his statement where he said on page 7: "This bill will provide that the maximum rent increase attributable to a pass-through of financing costs arising out of a sale of rental property will be limited to five per cent."

I wonder whether the minister can confirm a couple of things for me to make sure I have understood this correctly.

First of all, is that one sale or two sales or three sales? In other words, is it possible that each sale could have attributed to it a five per cent increase? Second, can the minister confirm that, in addition to the five, 10 or 15 per cent, there are other costs, plus the six per cent allowable increase, which are also being allowed to be passed through by the landlord? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary and existing guideline of six per cent, which permits a landlord to impose a six per cent increase in rent without going to rent review, remains. If a landlord chooses to go to rent review to prove he has cause to justify a higher increase, then the only amount that will be added to rent as a result of any financing costs will be five per cent.

Other operating costs will be treated as usual with one exception, in that a further guideline issued today will require very strong evidence that --

Mr. McClellan: He can to back a second time.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, he cannot go back.

An hon. member: It will be dealt with on an annual basis.

Mr. Breithaupt: Within one year?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying was that operating costs, as otherwise, will be evaluated by the commission to justify them with one exception, in that there is a new guideline today which will require very stringent proof that major renovations, or indeed renovations, are either under way or there is a firm contract with a specified date of completion.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister not agree with me that there are still a number of outstanding details that he is not going to be looking into and that should be looked into, given the size of this transaction?

I draw another one to the minister's attention. The minister is aware that the agreement between Cadillac Fairview and Greymac Credit expressly forbade Greymac from assigning the agreement; so obviously Greymac was in violation of the agreement. There appear to be so many violations, so many conflicts of interest -- the mortgagee is at the same time one of the vendors, for example -- and many non-arm's-length transactions, not just involving the trust companies but also involving the principals. Would the minister not agree we need a thorough investigation of how this happened?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, let us be very clear in understanding that the rent review process allows for a thorough review of arm's length transactions, and this House and the tenants of this province have my assurance this will be deeply and thoroughly reviewed. Let there be no doubt about that.

Second, if there was some breach of contract between Cadillac and Greymac, I would suggest to the member, as a lawyer, that it is a problem for Cadillac to see whether the agreement was breached. Whether there was any breach under the Bulk Sales Act is a matter that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is aware of and is having reviewed. As the member knows, the Bulk Sales Act aims at protecting the creditors as a result of a sale or transaction, and I guess the issue is whether the subsequent transactions required exemptions the way the first one did. That is the issue the Attorney General will be addressing and will be prepared to comment on.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. It has now been 19 days since he suggested he would be coming to this House and responding to the federal proposals. In that time, 17,000 Ontarians have lost their jobs. It has been six weeks since he promised some kind of job action. In that period of time, 40,000 people have lost work in this province. When is the minister coming forward in this Legislature with a job creation program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable leader assumes I had specific proposals from the federal government to which I could react. I did not. We have been working quite hard, in fact right across the weekend, to get more specifics. Mr. Axworthy is seeing me in person tomorrow. I trust he will clarify a number of the outstanding areas of confusion and that will allow me to respond.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not feel somewhat irresponsible at least, in the way he is quoted in the press today as blaming Quebec for stealing from him, and setting up that phoney kind of an argument that I have seen come from certain people of his ilk? I have seen it before and I resent it. Does the minister not think he should take this opportunity to stand up in the House and apologize for that kind of ridiculous statement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Any time the member cannot make points with his head he makes them with his mouth.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any accusations. I was asked whether I thought -- I think this was a question posed to me in the scrum -- if Ontario had 490,000 jobless and Quebec had 420,000 jobless, that $120 million was a fair amount. I said I did not know how they did the arithmetic to arrive at the Ontario share. I think those are the words in the press, accurately stating what I said. They then asked, "Is that normal? " I said that is often the case. There appear to be more ministers from Quebec in the cabinet than there are from Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Treasurer a very simple question. In his answer to the first question from the leader of the Liberal Party, he said he did not have sufficient time to react to the federal proposals. I wonder if he can tell us why he sees himself in a totally passive role and why he has to wait for federal proposals simply to react. Does he not think he has a responsibility himself, and that the government has a responsibility itself, for creating jobs in this province without having to wait for somebody else to tell them what to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not waited for a response only. While the member was not here, we were quite busy working in Ontario creating jobs. We put about $0.5 billion out there while he was sitting up in the bleachers. We have been working quite hard creating jobs. We stimulated sales in housing, for example, to the point where the seventh best sales record in the history of the Toronto Real Estate Board was reported last month.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister going to come back to this House day after day and say it is not his responsibility? My original question was when was he going to respond. He did not answer that.

Would the Treasurer not agree that the situation is sufficiently severe that it is going to require a very dramatic move on his part? Whether the federal government gives him $120 million or $140 million, he has an obligation to put in very much more than that to address our problems here in this province.

Would the Treasurer not agree that, given the savings he will achieve through his restraint program, some $400 million to $800 million, depending on whom you talk to, by paring down wasteful government expenditures, and by including doctors in the restraint program, we could easily come up with a $1 billion program for jobs now? This could create 100,000 man-years of work here when we need it, in this province over the winter.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was trying to point out that we did go ahead, whether the Leader of the Opposition likes it or not, with a major program in my budget. I did say --

Mr. Epp: That was Suncor.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second; let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On September 21 I said, and the Premier (Mr. Davis) said the same thing that same day, that in the absence of any federal program we would be bringing forward some Ontario initiatives.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was two months ago.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I still have not had any specific details from the federal government on how they intend to spend the allocation.

We have been working quite well. I hope members on that side of the House would think it is better for the two governments, at this time of very real economic distress, to do their best to work out a joint program than to fly off in all directions.

We have been doing that. We have been doing something the opposition very seldom accuses us of doing: that is, trying very hard to formulate a policy with the federal government in the interests of all the people in Ontario who are out of work.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Given that 900 jobs a day have been lost in Ontario since his Treasurer's budget, how can he explain to this Legislature the extraordinary delay in bringing in measures that will provide a serious job strategy for the province this winter and for the years to come?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to express my apologies to the new member for York South. I must confess that before being informed that he had selected yesterday to take his seat in the Legislature, I had assumed certain obligations, not of a public nature but involving more of a domestic responsibility. I really did make every effort to get here by two o'clock, but I was delayed; and I would like to take this occasion to welcome the member here and to say how much we are looking forward to his participation.

I think, in fairness, that the Treasurer has really answered the question in many respects, but I shall endeavour to amplify what he said, as is sometimes my custom. I would say to the new leader in the House of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Breithaupt: The third party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thrive on interjections, and the new leader is sort of waving to his troops behind not to interject. I would give him some friendly advice at the outset. If he thinks he can control the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) or any of them when it comes to interjections, he has another think coming. He just will not be able to control them.

Mr. Rae: What about your guys?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not try to control them. They are free, independent people who can speak their own minds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they are interrupting me.

I think the Treasurer outlined the approach of this government, know the new leader feels we are passively waiting for the federal response. I can assure the honourable member we have made many direct communications with federal ministers.

2:50 p.m.

Actually, in August the Premiers of this country made some specific suggestions in terms of a national approach to economic recovery and, as the member for York South understands, we have not yet received a positive response to what I think would be a desirable objective, that is, having the governments of this country come together to see if we cannot hammer out some common approaches.

The government of Canada in its wisdom or lack of it, depending on one's perspective, determined it would go its own route. It announced in the nonbudget of Mr. Lalonde certain initiatives in terms of dollar amounts with some rough indication as to the directions it would be pursuing. The Treasurer has informed the House as recently as seven or eight minutes ago that he will be meeting with Mr. Axworthy tomorrow to try to clarify and define those areas where the federal government is establishing some measure of priority.

We are concerned that we do not want to duplicate and we do not want to fragment. We want to make those determinations in terms of trying to prioritize the issues and seeing where we can best allocate the funds. We are as anxious as anyone else to alleviate some of the existing problems, but the leader of the New Democratic Party, who over the years has been something of an expert in matters economic, I am sure understands when he relates some of these figures that the economy of this province is still very vulnerable to economic conditions in many other jurisdictions.

I know he has not heard me say this before but some of his colleagues have because I tend to single out the auto sector as one of the examples. We have explored certain alternatives over the years, and have done so very recently, with respect to the auto sector. Whatever route we were to take here in terms of the number of jobs in Windsor, St. Thomas, London, Brampton, Oshawa, Oakville, etc., it is quite obvious that improvement would really only be effected when the upturn in the American economy led to greater consumer demand. The member is aware of these figures. Eighty per cent of that production is sold in the United States' market. That happens to be 25 per cent of the economy of this province.

If the member feels we should not be attempting to work in a co-operative sense with the national government, that we should just do our own thing, I understand that point of view; I simply happen to disagree with it. The Treasurer has a meeting tomorrow. I expect after those discussions we in turn can become definitive as to what our proposals will be to this House.

Mr. Rae: I knew it would be like trying to pin jello to the wall, but I did not know the jello would keep changing colour in the course of the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

An hon. member: Very funny.

Mr. Rae: I would like to simply --

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Fascinating, fascinating.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask --

Hon. Mr. Pope: Throw him out, Richard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Help him, Jimmy, help him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Blue Army chorus is at it again. We have heard from them before.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Shaking like jelly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That didn't take 15 minutes.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I have all day. I do not mind this.

I would like to ask the Premier a very simple question. How does taking $1,000 out of the pockets of a worker in a nursing home or a hospital help that person buy a car?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure that is a supplementary to the main question --

Mr. Rae: It is supplementary to the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I will make some effort to answer and I will not reply to the member's delightful, constructive comment.

Mr. T. P. Reid: But as soon as you think of something you will reply.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never made any apologies for my substance and it will take a bigger man than the member to nail me to the wall in whatever form. I do not apologize for my many colours either.

It is not our intent to take "$1,000 out of the wages" -- I think that is the correct way to phrase it -- of workers in our nursing home system or in our hospitals.

I am sure in the honourable member's third supplementary, which I know he has prepared well in advance, he can place before me certain specific situations in terms of individual cases. I would only say to the member, as we do our rough calculations, that Bill 179 provides some measure of flexibility for those people at the lower end of the income scale.

His colleagues in the Ontario Federation of Labour were in this morning and we had a very constructive meeting. One of them referred to the fact that somebody had called in on a radio show that he or she was earning $3.45 or $3.50 an hour and how this legislation was going to have an impact upon that individual. I pointed out that there was nothing in that legislation which would preclude that individual from receiving 10 or 11 per cent, perhaps even 12 per cent, by way of increase in his salary for next year.

I also pointed out, when one of the member's colleagues raised this matter with me, that when one is talking about the economy in a general sense, and while the member is trying to argue that by our legislation in the public sector we are reducing consumer demand or taking money out of the system -- that and I will give him the example because I know he has not had a chance to read Hansard. Take the public sector as it relates to the teaching profession in the city of Brampton.

Mr. Martel: Here we go.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. I think it is important that he understand this.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: That's a lot of nonsense because it doesn't work that way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, there is no question that the secondary school teachers in my town -- and I have heard from them -- will not receive as much in part of 1983 and part of 1984 as their contract provides. No question. But I say with the greatest of respect that, in the tax levels where many of them are located, and taking into consideration the fact they have security of employment, and the fact that they are already at a fairly high income level in my humble opinion, this legislation will not reduce their consumer demand. But I will tell the member what it will do.

I am not happy about the legislation; I made that clear this morning but its impact on the mill rate in the city of Brampton for educational purposes will be significant to the extent that the rate will not increase. There are far more people and consumers in the city of Brampton whose income levels will be disturbed less by mill rate increases because of our legislation than there are public servants, even if one includes all of those excellent employees out at the Vanier Centre and the other public institutions in our community.

One sometimes neglects the other aspect of what the restraint program does and that is to diminish the impact of mill rate increases on hundreds of thousands of real property taxpayers. That is leaving money in the system.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in his answer to the original question, the Premier lamented the fact that the auto industry was down and he said -- I do not think I am putting words in his mouth -- "As soon as the auto industry comes back, as soon as the demand comes back, we will start producing cars and all those jobs will be returned.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not say that.

Mr. Peterson: Some of those jobs will be returned. The Premier seems to pin all of his hopes on the auto industry every time this question is asked, so let me ask him this. The Premier is aware, of course, that there have been layoffs of some 47,000 workers in that area. He is also aware of studies in his own ministry indicating that even if the demand comes back to pre-recession levels, that industry will employ 20 to 30 per cent fewer people than it did at that peak. That still gives us a major public policy problem: How are we going to deal with that 20 or 30 per cent; those people who will never go back to work in the auto industry? What is the Premier going to do for them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is amazing what a little competition in the House does in terms of the "my, my" and "what are you going to do for them?"

Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the leader of the Liberal Party that I did not say what he said I said. That is not new; it is not unique. What I was trying to do for our new colleague in the House was take the auto sector as being an example of how the market in the United States had a very significant impact on our flexibility in terms of what a government could do related to the auto sector. I did not say that the auto sector would return to its, say, 1977 or 1978 levels, whatever they were, when the market in the United States returned to normal. I do not recall saying that. If I did during the course of this afternoon's discussion, I stand corrected. But I happen to know that I did not say it; so I know he will not try to correct me.

3 p.m.

I think I tried to portray for the member that in terms of that sector, it was significant. It is not the only sector in Ontario; believe it or not, I understand that, when the auto sector returns to normal, whatever the definition of that word may be, whether there will be fewer jobs or more or whether the status quo maybe achieved again, I cannot honestly answer.

Certainly we have had some studies. I recall very well a study that the member keeps referring to, and others made some specific references to American Motors. That was an internal study that was done some two years ago. I have to tell the honourable members, American Motors is surviving; it is still there. It is going to be there several years from now, in my humble opinion. Those studies are not always accurate. I hate to confess that government studies are not always accurate, but they are not.

In terms of our capacity in this province for retraining, we have the technical facilities and the programs. I know the members opposite will not believe this but, in terms of our ability to provide these programs, I do not think our flexibility and our physical plant are superseded by any other jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Rae: The budget of the Treasurer was as inaccurate and as unhelpful to the economy as was the MacEachen budget that preceded it. I would like to ask the Premier this --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You brought in that government.

Mr. Rae: The member opposite says I brought in that government. I would like to --

Hon. Mr. Pope: You are not going to do it, my friend.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please. Order.

Mr. Rae: It was the Treasurer's name that was on all the Liberal ads, not mine. I want to point that out. Pierre Trudeau's best friend is sitting right over there.

I want to ask the Premier whether 14 workers sharing 280 weeks of work to set up and paint shooting ranges at the Crean Hill Gun Club, and eight workers sharing 128 weeks of work to improve the site on the Trans-Canada Highway of the Coniston Curling Club in Sudbury are examples of the kind of imaginative job creation program we can now expect from this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the honourable member that when he asks a question of this nature, he might relay to the members of the House the many other programs existing in the Sudbury area and perhaps consult with those who are involved in those programs as to whether they think they are of substance or meaning.

The member is not going to trap me into saying I know nothing about the two items he referred to. He may think I am a little bit naïve because he has been playing in the major league for so long. I have news for him: He may find this is more of a major league than where he has been.

Mr. Rae: That was a good answer on job creation in Sudbury. I am sure it will come as a lot of solace to the thousands of unemployed people up there. I am sure they will really enjoy and appreciate it a great deal.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Can the minister confirm that after all is said and done in his statement, apart from job creation for a number of lawyers and accountants, which I am sure will come as great solace again to the workers of Sudbury, the bottom line of this government's policy and attitude is that because some private company is able to sit for two or three weeks and shuffle paper and realize a significant profit of $100 million, $200 million or $250 million, the costs of that refinancing and that transfer, whether it is over three or five years, are ultimately still going to be paid for by the tenants of this province. Is that the bottom line?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we should review just what I said. I have an obligation as the minister in charge of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to be certain the valuations placed on the property are accurate. Once that has been determined, and once that final report is in, then the member might ask a second question about what the value of the property is and what we are going to do about it. I do not have those answers yet.

But the point I sincerely want the member to take from this is that within the legislation that is in my ministry, the Residential Tenancies Act, the guidelines that have now been promulgated by the commission will act as a severe deterrent to the transfer of property in rapid succession in the way we have seen on this occasion. That is the bottom line. I say that quite honestly and frankly.

Mr. Rae: If the minister will turn to page 8 of his statement and look at the so-called guidelines in which he takes such pride, he will see that every one of those guidelines is merely permissive. The words "may be" occur throughout under A, B and C: "may be," "may be," "may be." Maybe; maybe not. Can the minister tell us why these guidelines are permissive, and will he not agree that because they are permissive they do not provide any guarantee for tenants at all?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If that is so, I wish the member for York South would meet with the landlord groups that complain the previous three-year guideline was being too rigidly enforced. But he is quite right: Each landlord, each person presenting a case, will have the opportunity to put forth a good argument why it should not be five years. But, by and large, the commission, even with its three-year guideline, has followed it and on occasion has gone to five. I think the guidelines as they exist even now are being fairly rendered and this extension of time adds even more to the stringent requirements that will be placed on those who appear before them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on page 8 of his statement, why is the minister prematurely announcing a five-year guideline rather than a three-year guideline for the pass-through when he is bringing in a temporary bill to limit the pass-through of financing to five per cent of the rent only? Why would he not wait until the expiry of his original restraint bill, until he has a thorough review of the situation as it is, before coming up with his new policy, whether it is a five-year, three-year or 10-year pass-through? Is he not running in conflict with his own situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, if the Leader of the Opposition reads the guidelines, he will see that they apply as of today. Therefore, hearings on sales or resales that have occurred in the past months will be dealt with under the new guidelines. Second, the message is very clear that the size of this sale and the particular transactions that took place have had a serious impact on me and on the government.

We are endeavouring to make it clear that this type of multiple transaction is not something that we think is reasonable in a society that is talking about restraint and about rewards on the basis of productivity. Clearly, we are saying that this kind of pass-through, allowing large profits to be taken in a hurry, is not something I personally think is good for society, nor is it good for the process.

Mr. Rae: If the minister thinks this is a clear message to anybody, he must be kidding himself.

In the face of the kind of speculation we have seen over the past two months in the Cadillac Fairview deal, and over the past six to eight months in many other deals, if the government really wants to bring in a clear message to speculators, why does it not reintroduce a land speculation tax?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member may have his own views, but I submit to him that this will be looked upon as being very oppressive and as having the same effect as the land speculation tax. If he wishes to ask questions about that, he knows the proper minister to direct it to.

LAKE SUPERIOR POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to a question raised yesterday by the member for York South, particularly in view of the fact that, as it was communicated to me outside the House yesterday, he expressed both shock and depression at the fact that I did not happen at the moment to have the information at my fingertips. I hasten to assure him that the reason for that was that the matter he raised is one that I had dealt with some two months ago while he was out casting about for a seat in the House and the specific details were not readily at my fingertips yesterday when the question was raised.

3:10 p.m.

First of all, the honourable member raised the question as to how long I had been aware that the levels of toxaphene were twice the acceptable amount in certain fish in Lake Superior. That information, if in fact that is the information he has, is incorrect. I can only assume that what he means by an acceptable amount is in reference to the only standard that exists, and that is the standard for commercial fish which is five parts per million. In the samples that have been tested both by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and by the Canadian authorities in Environment Canada, the average runs at about 1.9 part per million in the fish samples tested.

He may be looking at a specific isolated example of one that may be as high as seven parts per million. If that is the case, I would suggest that he should discuss the implications of that with scientists who are knowledgeable in this field. I think they would readily and quickly explain to him that an isolated single example, given the type of testing that is done, is not in itself reliable. There has to be a broader sampling done.

If he has data other than that which has been produced by either Environment Canada or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, I would hope he would be willing to share it with members of the House and especially with the scientists in my ministry.

He also had implied yesterday that the material in question, toxaphene, was as dangerous to the fish in Lake Superior as dioxin is to the fish in Lake Ontario. He attributed that opinion to many unnamed scientists. Once again, if he could quote for me any one scientist of the many he referred to, I would be pleased to have that information, because the scientists both within my ministry and those with whom they have been consulting on this matter, both in the Department of National Health and Welfare and those in the United States, would not concur in that opinion. In fact, the opinion is that the levels of toxaphene that are being found are not harmful to human health.

As I understand it, a report will be released today by the International Joint Commission, to which the staff of my ministry have made a very significant contribution, which expresses some concern at the lack of complete information at this stage and encourages both the scientists on this side of the lake and those on the other side to continue sharing the information as it accumulates. They also point out that the efforts that have been made on the Canadian side, particularly in Ontario, have been very satisfactory.

The member had raised the question as to what steps had been taken to identify and control the source of the material. First of all, since 1974 toxaphene has been very strictly controlled in Ontario. In fact, essentially the only use to which it is put is to treat fleas in hogs. That is only under special licence to veterinarians, and this year there have been three such licences issued. In 1981, there was one such licence issued.

On the American side, the use has been much more extensive. Just recently, the American government severely restricted the use of toxaphene and reduced the amount from some 12 million pounds a year to 900,000 pounds a year; it has limited its use. It is no longer used for cotton and tobacco applications but is restricted to certain uses and the treatment of parasites in animals.

If the member would like some further information or has further questions, perhaps I could leave it open to him to raise that. If at any time he wishes a briefing from staff in my ministry, I will arrange that as well.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister took six minutes to reply to a question from the day previous, and he should have had --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, your watch must he different from mine, because he did not take even half that time.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You need a new watch.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? I must draw to the attention of the House that the member for Ottawa East was not in the House when the question was asked.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to the presentation from Mr. Ferguson, who is regional director of Environment Canada, to the IJC this morning. I wonder whether the minister is aware of the fact, since he called into question the figures I quoted yesterday -- and I will be glad to go over the figures with him any time he wants -- that on fish caught between 1977 and 1980 but analysed in 1982 the findings ranged from 0.4 to 10.9 parts per million. Those data are from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, from the US Fish and Wildlife Service laboratories in Columbia, Missouri, and from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I just want to point this out to the minister and ask whether he can confirm this information. If he can confirm it, why is he so quick simply to pooh-pooh the very real questions we raised yesterday in this House?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Far be it from me to pooh-pooh, especially in response to the honourable member

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I only suggest to the honourable member that he take the time to sit down with someone who is knowledgeable about the implications of ranges such as the one he described so he can understand the implications of this. I cannot verify the 10-parts-per-million figure that he cites. I do know that there were some as high as seven; there may well have been a few as high as 10. I reviewed the American data this morning. I do not recall seeing one at 10, but there might well have been one.

The point surely is that if the member understands the kind of testing that is done and the range of error in the testing because of the nature of the equipment used, and if he sits down with someone who knows what the implications of that are, that person will explain to him that he cannot cite the range specifically and use the upper limit as a signal of alarm; what you do is to look at testing over a period of time and look at averaging. If the member does that, I think he will find that the figures I have suggested to him are correct and that there is really no basis on which he can raise the alarm he is apparently trying to.

I just point out that the testing that has been done --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I suggest that the honourable member and the minister sit down privately and resolve their differences.

HYDRO EXPANSION

Mr. J. A. Reed: Now for a refreshing change of pace, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware of the fact that yesterday the Ontario Hydro board announced the delay of the completion of units 3 and 4 of Darlington. They also revised downward, the growth in energy demand to 2.1 per cent and the growth in peak demand to 2.3 per cent.

Is the minister aware that with such decreases in demand and even with the delay of the two units at Darlington, when unit 1 comes on stream at Darlington the Hydro system will have a 58.4 per cent surplus; when unit 2 comes on. we will have a 60.2 per cent surplus; when unit 3 comes on, we will have a 57.3 per cent surplus --

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have a question?

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am asking the question right now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to be able to complete it if I could.

In addition, when unit 4 comes on, we will have a 57.9 per cent surplus.

Given these facts, can the minister substantiate such gross overcapacity and can he inform us why construction of the Darlington plant was stepped up in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development BILD program, albeit during the 1981 election campaign?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member correctly points out that this announcement was made yesterday by the Hydro board, and although I know he was not in the House yesterday to ask the question, neither did the Energy critic of the party ask the question yesterday, which of course was the day the announcement was made. Here we are talking about something 24 hours after the announcement; so it really must be of earth-shaking importance to that group for them to wait a whole day to ask the question.

However, having noted that, I also do not know what the Natural Resources critic of the official opposition has against jobs. This is a very important megaproject in this province, providing hundreds of jobs and indeed providing great economic stimulation. All we have done with respect to this matter is add a couple of years to relieve some of the pressure with respect to provincial borrowing.

Without getting into all the details of the capacity and the percentage figures, I think in rationalization, those figures would be lower and the member would be fair enough to admit that load forecasting is not a very exact science. He would also know, if he had read those press releases carefully yesterday, that some very important decisions will face the Hydro board in the years to come with respect to some of that capacity which is mothballed because of their use of oil and natural gas. No one would really argue that they should be using those fuels.

There also will be some fairly difficult decisions to be taken with respect to the continuation of some thermal stations because of environmental concerns. So there will be a rationalization: Ontario will build on its capacity with respect to electricity and there will be a fairly obvious campaign with respect to inviting the people of this province to consider that particular option as we grow.

I see our electrical generating capacity as one of our strengths upon which we can build, with some confidence, the economic future of this province.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I would first like to say to the minister that sometimes there are events that do take precedence over being here. Occasionally there is a personal event that does take precedence.

The minister did not answer the question as to how in the BILD program he could announce the speedup of the completion of Darlington for six months and now announce the delay for two years. He must be aware that reduced load forecasts have been part of the energy scene of Ontario since 1976 and that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs listed that information on a continuing basis for this government.

Does the minister not realize that with this new load forecast, Darlington could be delayed for a full decade and that if he goes ahead with the completion based on these load forecasts we will be paying interest and depreciation on a piece of surplus hardware for that full 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I said it at the outset and I repeat what I already included in my answer to the original question. The member knows, because he is very knowledgeable about these matters, that the Hydro board will have to analyse the decisions that are going to be taken with respect to some of the thermal generation plant which is now reaching 35 to 40 years of age and attempt to rationalize this. I think we are going to be in that position. Indeed, as the economic situation rectifies itself, even the load forecast might have to be changed.

In making reference to the importance that I know the member attaches to all these matters, we had the officials of Hydro before the standing committee on resources development in the estimates for two and a half hours. I do not recall these questions being raised at that time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific supplementary for the minister arising out of his answer. Has Hydro made a firm decision about closing any hydraulic or coal-fired stations, what stations has it slated for closing, and how many jobs will be lost because of those closings when the giants at Pickering B, Bruce B and Darlington come on stream?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the first question is that no firm decisions have been taken with respect to either hydraulic or thermal plants. I only included that, as one would have to, in giving some consideration to the rationalization of the whole matter. But I repeat, no firm decisions have been made with respect to plants of that nature.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) keeps referring to this whole discussion that was presented to the Legislature here today by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) as "Mafia economics." I am not sure exactly what the honourable member means by that --

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, that is not a point of order. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Mancini: No. It is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister indicate to the House when the government will show a small measure of compassion and bring in legislation that will increase the benefits of injured workers? Rates have not been increased since July 1981 and the workers have been trying to get an increase from the government by writing the Premier (Mr. Davis), without receiving any answer, and by contacting the minister, without any result.

Hon. Mr. Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, with respect to one point the honourable member made, he indicated that the injured workers had written to the Premier and had no response. They sent me a copy of that letter and I responded directly. I also received a copy, a week or 10 days ago, of the letter the Premier sent back to them. I will be happy to share those with the member if he wishes to see them.

However, to directly answer the question, I hope to be in a position to make some sort of statement with respect to that within the next short period of time.

Mr. Di Santo: When the minister makes that statement, will he introduce legislation to increase the benefits or will he make a statement to postpone the increase in benefits indefinitely, until the work of the standing committee on resources development is finished or until we get the Weiler report, adopting the same tactics that he has adopted in the past?

I remind the minister that on September 23, 1982, he made a commitment to this House that if we did not have the final report of the committee before Christmas, he would introduce legislation. Will he introduce legislation or not?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me just go back a moment if I may. We had originally hoped to have the question of the Weiler report sent to committee early in the summer. For reasons of scheduling that was impossible and it wound up going to committee in September. It was scheduled to be there for five weeks and we were optimistic about receiving a report that we could act upon.

The Legislature came back early and the committee was cancelled. I appealed to the government House leader (Mr. Wells) to have the committee continue. He conferred with the House leaders of the other two parties and the general consensus was that the estimates and the bills currently being studied in committee had to take priority. I was disappointed with that decision. It was a decision, I understand, of the three House leaders that the committee would not reconvene until January.

The member is completely correct when he says I indicated that if we were not able to get a decision or a recommendation from the standing committee on resources development, which was studying the Weiler report, I would undertake some sort of interim increase. That commitment was made and I assure the members it will be honoured.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's last statement. I would like to clarify the matter one more time, as the minister is aware of the demonstration today and the concern injured workers have that it has been some time since the last increases.

I am aware the minister made a comment on September 23 that interim revisions would be required. Is he now saying in this House that those revisions will be brought before this Legislature and acted upon before the end of this session, before Christmas? Will he give us that commitment now?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, before I make that commitment, I am committed to discussing this matter with my cabinet colleagues and that is scheduled to be done in the near future.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: When I was up earlier, you may have misinterpreted my intent. I was not up on a point of order, I was up on a point of privilege.

Several times during the legislative sitting today the member for Sudbury East has continued to inject the words "mafia economics" during the cut and thrust of the debate. Since I have taken my seat in the last few minutes, I have been informed the member has been making those statements with regard to comments which were made by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and which appeared in print.

It is my view that the repeating of such comments does not necessarily make it correct. I am just as offended by the interjections of the member for Sudbury East as I would be by reading the printed statement of the member for Sudbury.

That word has a terrible connotation for a particular ethnic group. The repeating of that phrase "mafia economics" continues to place a slur on that ethnic group. Just because one member may have made a mistake by referring to the economic system that way, in my view it is not correct that another member should continue to repeat it and repeat it. I am offended by the original comment and by the repetition.

Mr. Speaker: I must advise the member for Essex South that is not really a point of privilege. His privileges have not been abridged in any way, shape or form.

I think the remarks were not made in a discriminatory context, if I may say that, or to point a finger at any particular group in society. My understanding, limited as it may be, is that the organization encompasses a very large group.

Mr. Mancini: You did not see the CBC show.

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not. Having said that, I must rule it is not a point of privilege, although it is an interesting point of view.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East?

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Another one?

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate for my friend's edification, because he was not here, that the matter was raised some weeks ago in reference to comments made by the member for Sudbury, in question period, in trying to elicit -- let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You told me you were going to establish a new point of privilege and I have already ruled that was not a point of privilege. Therefore, I must rule you are out of order. With great respect, I must ask you to take your chair.

Mr. Martel: No.

Mr. Speaker: You will just not take no for an answer.

Mr. Martel: Reference has been made to me by the member for Essex South in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute; hold it. Order. I am not letting anybody get away with anything. If the honourable member has a legitimate point of privilege I will be pleased to hear it, but he keeps referring to a former one which I have ruled out of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I ask for your assistance? Some weeks ago he made reference to a comment another --

Mr. Elston: The member for Sudbury East has to have a new point.

Mr. Martel: No, let me finish. How can the Speaker answer my question if he is not going to hear it?

Several weeks ago the matter was raised in this Legislature about Ontario Hydro's behaviour and the manner in which someone attributed the matter of Hydro's economics, and the member for Sudbury termed it mafia economics --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I was here. I understand the context in which the question was asked and the statement made. I think I have made it quite clear that it was not to be taken out of context. It was not a discriminatory remark in any way, shape or form and it was not pointed in the direction of any one particular group.

RIDEAU CENTRE

Mr. Roy: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In June 1982, in the spring session, I sponsored a piece of legislation called the city of Ottawa act which, in brief, was to assist in the development of a project in Ottawa to be called Rideau Centre. On that basis, all members co-operated and allowed the legislation to go through.

Subsequently, a second piece of legislation was presented to this assembly called Bill 105, An Act respecting the Mortgage Financing of Rideau Centre in the City of Ottawa. This legislation was sponsored by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and was intended to assist with the mortgage financing of this project. All members, including those on this side of the House, were told that this was a project involving public funds and required the co-operation of all the members.

This legislation, which contains a section defining the Rideau Centre as an entity, was passed. However, we have been told just recently that the centre will now be called the Eaton centre.

My point of privilege involves all of the members in the sense that we were in some way misled. We believed we were supporting a project called the Rideau Centre. I want to say to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), I am very disappointed that he has not risen to give us an explanation of this and to advise whether he thought, at the time we passed this legislation, that the name was to continue to be Rideau Centre and not Eaton centre. We deserve an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member that is not a point of privilege either.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: We were misled.

Mr. Speaker: I think there is a proper time in the order of the House to deal with these matters and this is not really the time; although the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing seems anxious to say something.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since my name and ministry have been taken in question by the member for Ottawa East, let me suggest --

Mr. Martel: If it is not a point of privilege, why is the minister up?

Mr. Speaker: I will determine that, not you. With great respect, just resume your seat, please.

I pointed out, with great respect, that the member for Ottawa East did not raise a legitimate point of order. Now having said that, he also interjected that maybe the minister would like to rise and clarify the record. If the minister wants to --

Mr. Martel: Now, wait a minute. Just a minute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat. If the minister, of his own volition, wants to rise and correct the record, that is his privilege.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I also rose of my own volition to clarify the record and you told me I could not. You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: You did not, with all respect.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: He has not got the right to get up and respond then. What kind of nonsense is this?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat. The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) will please co-operate.

I would like to point out very clearly to the member for Sudbury East, who apparently feels that he has been discriminated against and that I have offended his sensibilities in some way, that I have not done that. He rose on a point of privilege or a point of order. He had neither. He did not say he wanted to correct the record.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, you did not. If the minister has something to say, I am willing to listen to him at this point.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was commencing to say that in relationship to the Rideau Viking centre the name by which we have known the project, and I suppose we will continue to know it as existing under that name -- it is my understanding that the Eaton group has requested a change in the name of the centre. They are the land owners. Through lease or ownership they are the people who will control the Rideau Centre.

In my discussion this morning with Fred Eaton of the Eaton company, I indicated to him that I agreed with the sympathies being expressed in the city of Ottawa, that the name Rideau Viking centre was a more appropriate name and that I thought the name should be retained. Obviously the talk shows, the editorials. TV, the press and the gab or discussion in the streets is to the effect that the name Rideau Viking centre is more symbolic of the project than Eaton Rideau centre.

Mr. Roy: Rideau Centre.

Mr. Boudria: Rideau Centre, period.

Mr. Roy: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I suggested to Mr. Eaton that they might want to rethink the situation if they are truly, let me suggest to the member for Ottawa East, making an application to change that name. I am not sure whether the Eaton people will reconsider the position. I am told through legal counsel that since they are the property owners they will have the right to choose the name --

Mr. Roy: That is not what the bill says.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker -- the name of the company is one thing, and the centre project could be another.

Mr. Speaker: I must call the minister to order.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOLS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege on a totally different matter.

On November 5, 1982 the Premier (Mr. Davis) told us that he would have an answer on the following Monday on the situation of the French-language schools in Iroquois Falls and Mattawa, in reply to a question I asked in this House. As of this day no reply has come from him or the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

The francophones of this province have waited for years for a reply from this government and they are not getting anything. This situation is intolerable and the Premier should come into this House and tell us the answers to those questions.

Hon. Mr. Pope: You go up there. I know you are going up there. Go ahead. Why don't you go to Hawkesbury and talk there? Go to our own riding. Go and solve Hawkesbury.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the member for Prescott-Russell that was not a legitimate point of privilege, but rather could be considered a point of order.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: I think I must point out the obvious to all honourable members. I can understand the ritual that has taken place. Everybody has staked out his territory and established himself quite well, but I must point out that question period is for the benefit of all honourable members. Today we had three quarters of the time taken up by the three leaders and their questions and answers.

I would request the co-operation of all honourable members and if I do not get that co-operation, then I must direct your attention to standing order 27(e). I serve notice that I expect this co-operation. If we do not have co-operation I will start calling the honourable members to order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment very briefly, if I could, on the point you have just concluded making. I do not envy you the very difficult and onerous task you have in trying to bring some balance here. I want to reiterate my personal concern, and I am going to be very direct: I have an impression -- perhaps entirely personal and perhaps too partisan, but it is none the less a very deep impression -- that the leader of the government is allowed endless latitude, almost limitless time in which to give answers, and I can cite one specific example here today that in about 70 per cent of its volume bore absolutely no relation to the question asked.

Yes, it is true that we on this side of the Speaker's dais are not without sin in this respect, and I accept my share of that responsibility. But if this place is going to be improved -- and God knows it needs to be improved, because it is a pretty unhappy looking and sounding place -- I just hope there will be a greater sense of balance in this matter: and I hope that, since he will inevitably set much of the tone in this place, the leader of the government can begin to set a better example than I frankly believe he has been setting in recent days.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I am pleased that the member for Renfrew North made the comment. However, from a totally non-partisan viewpoint, if I may -- and I was not looking to either side of the House -- there is, I guess, blame on all sides. But I must point out to you that when this specific individual is asked a question, there seems to be a compulsion for a lot of other members to ask questions of him at the same time, and he apparently feels an obligation to respond to all those individual questions.

I would suggest that if we are going to take a modicum of dignity and order in this House, when a question is placed by anyone, we respect the right of the individual member who has asked that question to get a reasonable answer. That is all I ask. Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I cannot find in the standing orders anything that covers matters of agreement made between members in the Legislature with witnesses. An agreement was made by myself and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) about a certain event that passed recently in which one party won and another party lost. I have been waiting for him to come forward and he is claiming the privilege that an agreement made in this House is not valid. Is that not the worst --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that is really even a point of view, with all respect.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What about Spensieri's $100?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about that.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Earlier, when asking your advice on a point of order, I may have maligned one of the members of this House. I would like to make it clear to everyone that the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) is an honourable member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I think there was never any doubt about that.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton, and Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Burlington, now referred to the standing committee on general government, and Bill Pr40, An Act to revive Ceephil Investments Ltd., now referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Cooke and Mr. Mackenzie for Mr. Breaugh and Mr. Swart; on the standing committee on general government, Mr. Samis and Mr. Charlton for Mr. Grande and Mr. Wildman; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Stokes for Mr. Di Santo; and on the standing committee on social development, Mr. Allen for Mr. Cooke.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the urgent need to fully and immediately debate the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations' statement on the unprecedented sale of almost 11,000 apartments by Cadillac Fairview, which is likely to be followed by sales by other large development firms; the consequent flipping of these properties within days resulting in huge speculative gains which add nothing to the value of the rental units but which clearly threaten thousands of tenants with economic eviction as a result of the financing cost pass-through allowed under Ontario's rent review program; the complete inadequacy of a rent review program that permits rental property to be priced beyond reach in order to secure speculative gains for owners and purchasers; the prospect of further massive disruption in the rental housing market as other firms take advantage of Ontario's lax corporate disclosure laws to trade buildings, and the need to be assured that the proposals of the minister's statement will fully protect Ontario's tenants from unfair rent increases and consequent loss of their homes.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to all honourable members that this motion was received in my office in time and I have had an opportunity to peruse it very carefully and thoroughly.

I must point out to the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that I find his motion out of order inasmuch as it is substantially the same -- indeed, almost exactly the same -- as a previous motion which he moved yesterday.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, before you conclude your ruling, may I speak to a point of order with respect to your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. McClellan: I understand the ruling will be the same as the one you made on October 28, and I wanted to have an opportunity to speak to standing order 34(a) before you had made a final decision on it.

Mr. Speaker: I think if you hear me out and if you then have a point of order or privilege, I would be pleased to hear it.

As I say, I have had an opportunity to look it over very carefully and I would direct the member for York South's attention to standing order 34(c)(iv) and point out the obvious, which is that this matter has indeed been previously discussed and therefore I cannot allow it on the same basis that I could not allow a debate to proceed which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), having cited all the precedents at that time.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order Mr. Speaker: If I could just make this submission to you, sir, quite simply that in fact the motion is not the same. Whereas the motion that was put forward by the Liberal Party was in fact identical, this motion is not identical. It has two additional clauses in it which are substantially different from the motion put yesterday.

With respect, sir, the first clause and the last clause both refer to events that transpired today and both refer to the statement that was made by the minister today. One of the things we are attempting to call into question and attempting to debate today is the very statement which the minister made.

If I may refer you as well to arguments that were made yesterday in the House by the government House leader, the main argument he made yesterday in arguing that this was not an urgent matter was that it was a matter that would be considered the next day and that the minister would be prepared to make a statement at that time.

In the light of those two facts, it is not the same motion. It is a different motion. It is a motion which has additional material in it and it is a debate which will have additional substance to it because it will include the statement that was made today by the minister. I would respectfully submit to you, sir, that the motion is in order.

Mr. McClellan: May I speak to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Just let me reply to that first, if I may. I will recognize you. I have already said that.

Mr. McClellan: It is closely related and it would be helpful to you, sir, if you would hear me.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to clarify a point with the member for York South. When I was referring to the previous motion, I was referring to his motion of yesterday, not the previous motion of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Rae: I understood that.

Mr. Speaker: To be quite honest with you, the motion of yesterday gave me some reason for doubt. I think I said that in reaching my decision. However, having said that and having perused this matter very carefully, in fact, the motion is substantially the same. It is word for word except for the last paragraph.

Mr. Rae: No, the first paragraph and last.

Mr. Speaker: And the first paragraph, right; I do not see that it is substantially different enough to abrogate or to nullify the provisions of standing order 34(c)(iv).

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is you have deviated from the requirements of standing order 34(a) in making your ruling out of sequence. Standing order 34(a), which deals with procedural motions, is very clear and specific. It says "any member may move to set aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance," and "such member may explain his arguments in favour of his motion in not more than five minutes." Having made that explanation --

Mr. Breithaupt: Only if the motion is acceptable.

Mr. McClellan: No, that is precisely the point. After the member makes his arguments in favour of the motion, then the Speaker rules as to whether the motion is in order and whether it is of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to be brief but I do not want to be interrupted either, with respect. I am trying to point out on a point of order that you are not permitted, under the standing order, to rule whether the motion is in order or out of order until the argument has been made. How can you possibly prejudge the question of whether the motion is in order or out of order until the member who is raising the question puts the arguments in front of you?

I insist the standing order is absolutely clear as to the sequence of events. First, the member makes the argument, then the other two parties respond to the argument, then the Speaker rules, one, is the question in order, and two, is it of urgent public importance. A serious mistake was made on October 28 which I hope is not going to be repeated this afternoon.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in a way I am very pleased the member for Bellwoods has raised this because in my time here it has been my memory in almost all circumstances, in fact, in all my personal remembrances, that the procedure is as interpreted by the member for Bellwoods; that is, as long as the motion is submitted on time it is then entertained with a round robin, as it were, of five minutes, after which the Speaker makes his judgement on the grounds the member has indicated. I would indicate that my understanding of the practice and my reading of the rule very much squares with that of the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this point of order raised by my colleague the member for Bellwoods because the implication of your ruling is going to live with us for a long time. I want to draw your attention to the whole of rule 34 which is part VII of the standing orders and deals with this particularly, in rule 34, and I need not discuss rules 35 and 36, under the heading "Procedural Motions."

I understand you to have ruled against my leader's motion specifically under rule 34(c)(iv) that, "the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order." I understand that to be your ruling.

I would submit that under the rule, the matters of substance in the motion by the leader of this party have not been discussed in the same session under this standing order. I draw your attention to the specific. semantic discussion required before the debate can proceed.

In rule 34(a) the first item is, "Before the Orders of the Day, any member may move to set aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance of which he has given written notice to the Speaker at least two hours before the sitting of the House."

The second step is, "Such member may explain his arguments in favour of his motion in not more than five minutes." The third step is, "One member from each of the other parties in the House may state the position of his party with respect to the motion in not more than five minutes." The fourth step is, "The Speaker shall then rule on whether or not the motion is in order and of urgent public importance."

4 p.m.

I pause, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is the purpose of the first three steps: to enable you to determine whether or not the motion is in order and of urgent public importance. It has no other purpose.

The fifth step is that if you then rule in favour of the motion, you "will then put the question, 'Shall the debate proceed?' to a vote of the House."

Then I specifically draw your attention to item (b) of the rule, "If the House determines by its vote to set aside the normal business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, each member who wishes to speak in the discussion shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The discussion, I submit, takes place only after there has been a vote in the House on your question, "Shall the debate proceed?" There has been no discussion of the matter set out in the motion of the leader of this party, which you ruled yesterday as being in order and which you ruled today as being not in order, excepting for the moment that the motions are substantively the same.

The rule then goes on to say: "(c) A motion under this standing order is subject to the following conditions: ...(iv) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order." I submit that there has been no discussion under this rule on the matter that is the substance of the resolution, and I would submit that your ruling, with great respect, is not in accordance with the rule.

Again with the greatest of respect, you will recall that a few days ago on another occasion I felt compelled to draw to your attention the specific obligation that you have under step four, to which I have referred, namely, that you must rule on whether or not the motion is in order and of urgent public importance. My submission concisely and simply is that this matter has not been discussed. Therefore, if the motion was in order and of urgent public importance yesterday, nothing has taken place since yesterday to relieve it of its obligation to be in order and of urgent public importance.

I therefore submit that you should reconsider your ruling and proceed in accordance with the order and in accordance with your decision of yesterday; and I know that a man of your breadth of view has no hesitation in the face of logical argument in changing his position, declaring that this motion today is in order and of urgent public importance, as it was yesterday, and allowing the matter to proceed.

I believe that your ruling on this question is going to live with us for a long time, and I would ask your urgent consideration of that submission.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in listening to the references you have made with respect to the rules. I suggest that we are dealing with two separate areas here. When we look at the rules dealing with procedural motions, the pattern is quite clear as to the sequence the member for Riverdale has suggested. Indeed, as he has said, you ruled yesterday that a debate on this item was in order, and the House decided not to proceed.

However, if you give us the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when you have heard a variety of arguments as to why the debate should proceed in the five minute sequence then, because of the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) and the various things which may flow from the appointment of Mr. Thom to his commission and from the appointment of the auditor to inspect the matters under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Companies Act, the House may in its wisdom decide to go ahead with a debate. Clearly, under standing order 34(c)(iv), "the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session..." I suggest that the matter has not been discussed. Only the proposal for an emergency debate has, in fact, occurred.

If you then turn to rule 39 which has been cited, I suggest to you, sir, that rule deals with substantive motions. It is in that section and, with respect, has nothing to do with the matter of procedural motions. So I believe we must remove any reference to section 39 of the rules as we look at this particular point.

There is one point which causes me some concern and that is, from the reading of the motion in caucus this morning, I believe it is somewhat different in wording from the motion as actually presented this afternoon. Because what was "an anticipated statement" -- I believe was the phrase -- is now something which has in fact occurred.

However, sir, as you had notice that a statement was going to be made from the comment made by the minister in his place yesterday, you may have decided to accept that necessary verbiage difference because something which was expected, in fact then had happened. If the motion is, therefore, verbally correct, it is surely up to the House to decide whether the ruling that you make will be substantiated and whether a debate will or will not occur, even though the circumstances may be the same or, on the other hand, may have substantially changed.

Therefore, I suggest to you, sir, that under rule 34(a) the sequence is quite clear and your ruling, with respect, should be based upon the results of that sequence, after which you may choose to make a reference to a rule as you see it under subsection 34(c). The House may well change its mind and proceed in support of a ruling once that is made, indeed, if you decide that the matters of yesterday, on which you were prepared to allow a debate, have changed so that a debate is not allowed today. The House, of course, may accept that or oppose that ruling in due course.

In any event, I suggest that the refusal today, based upon what was not in fact thoroughly debated yesterday, is a precedent which would be a most unfortunate one. I believe the sequence under 34(a) is quite clear and that only at the time when you have the obligation to say the phrase, "Shall the debate proceed?" will we know whether the House, by support of all parties, may have decided that this matter is a particular emergency and should be debated at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I think I made it very clear that was the last submission I was going to entertain. And do not wink at me with your great Irish charm.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought, sir, you might be interested in the views of the committee which recommended the standing order.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, I think that we are out of order in debating this in the first place. I have made a ruling. I am going to explain why I made that ruling.

The House actually made the decision not to proceed on this matter; it made that decision yesterday. It is not within my power to cancel or in any way interfere with the decision of the House. Therefore, as I said earlier, I cannot accept the motion. It has to be out of order.

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members: You are dead wrong.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, I am dead right. I would like to point out to the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), regarding the difference he cites between a procedural motion and a substantive motion; this is a substantive motion and standing orders 38 and 39 do apply.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this standing order to the House from the procedural affairs committee and during the debates we had, the intention at that time was clearly to do a simple thing. Rejecting standing order 43, which exists in the federal House, we decided that there ought to be a vehicle whereby members could propose a matter for what amounts to a 15-minute consideration by the House.

At the end of that time, the Speaker would check to see that all things were in order: that to avoid being repetitious we had not dealt with this before; that it had been submitted in time. Then we wanted the House to say whether or not it deemed this to be a matter it wanted to debate.

Clearly, we presented this standing order on that basis. We did not want standing order 43 floating around here every day and I think it has been the practice in this House that we have not abused this matter. This is not used every day; it is used when there is a matter of some importance and it is used by members from all sides.

We changed the standing orders to provide members with an opportunity to have that kind of mini-debate for 15 minutes. Then the Speaker would give us his version of whether it conformed with the rules of the House or had been dealt with previously, and then the Legislature itself would decide if an emergency debate would ensue.

I would plead with you, Mr. Speaker, to adhere to the principle and the practices which I do not think we have abused so far. We have consistently attempted to present the House with matters thought to be of public importance. We had these mini-debates of 15 minutes, which is not a long time, and then the House had a chance to decide whether we would debate the matter or not.

I think that has been our consistent practice and it certainly was the intent. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, to allow this standing order to proceed in the way we have always done. I do not think it has been a great imposition on the House and frankly, anybody would be hard pressed to say we have abused that standing order.

Mr. Speaker: I have made it quite clear that the submissions being made are actually debates on a decision I have already made. The dilemma, quite clearly, is that I have to abide by the standing orders. The decision has been made by this House. I do not have the authority to alter that in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Stokes: The House has not decided on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, it has. I think we are entering into a debate that is clearly out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a very serious issue.

Mr. Speaker: Of course it is. I do not doubt that at all.

I have made my ruling. I am bound by the standing orders and that is my interpretation of the standing orders. I do not have any leeway to alter my decision.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately you leave us no alternative but to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

The member for Sudbury East has moved a challenge to the Speaker's ruling.

4:52 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F.S.;

Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 66; nays 46.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Registry Act;

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act;

Bill 145, An Act to amend the Brantford-Brant Annexation Act;

Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

5 p.m.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY ACT

Mr. Hennessy moved second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: If I recall, we were progressing on Bill 127.

Mr. Boudria: We were moving right along.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we were doing section 1 at great speed. I believe an amendment put forward by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) was defeated, but we have not passed section 1.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that you considered the first amendment I put in on section 1 to be out of order.

Mr. Chairman: That's right. Then we went ahead with your second amendment, which was the deletion of definitions 5 and 6 of clause 1(1)(b). We had a vote on that around 10:50 that particular night and your proposed amendment lost.

Mr. Grande: Correct. Therefore that amendment, as far as I am concerned, has been dealt with, so I guess we will move on to section 2 if there is nothing else --

Mr. Chairman: Then shall section 1 carry?

Carried.

Mr. Grande: No.

Mr. Chairman: No? I just said, "Shall section 1 carry?" and it was carried.

Mr. Grande: Well, I said no.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, I am sorry.

Shall section 1 carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Bradley: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that we were able to get through section 1 so rapidly, and there was a full and frank discussion of all aspects of section 1.

Section 2 is particularly important because, as members know, this section allows the people in Metropolitan Toronto to have the same three-year term of office that is available to others in the province. Subsection 118(4) of the act now provides for a two-year term of office, and the effect of this amendment, as is pointed out in the explanatory notes, is to make the term of office be governed by the Municipal Elections Act.

It seems eminently reasonable to us that Metropolitan Toronto should not be treated differently from the rest of the province in this regard. We feel it is very useful for us to have the three-year term because we are not then in a position of having elections in different years.

If we were to leave the situation as it existed before the bill, we would be in a position where the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education would serve for two years and the other boards of education would serve for three years. That would be a situation that could not be tolerated.

We are very pleased to see the three-year term. Some of us expressed some regrets previously, and I realize there were different points of view held even within the caucuses of the various parties on this, and members of the government caucus, for instance, may have had different views. I personally have felt that a two-year term is very reasonable, but someone might be able to find a Hansard where, somewhere along the line, I might have said three years is appropriate.

I remember the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) once did that to me. He was listening to a speech I was making and he read back the Hansard on the three-year, two-year term situation. Then I was able to find where he had something different to say on one occasion or another. This does happen.

I think we all agree on the three-year term at the present time. It is going to allow for maximum planning in terms of those who have been elected. We will have a situation, and it was indicated at least in other parts of the province, where the adoption of a three-year term resulted in bringing forward more candidates for office than the $850,000 that was blown by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) on advertising for people to come out and vote. What had more of an impact was the fact that people knew that the trustees they would be electing would be there for a full three years. Therefore, it seems very sensible that we have this same circumstance existing in Metropolitan Toronto.

They will better be able, particularly the newer members of that board of education, to recognize the problems that exist in Toronto and become more familiar with the workings of that board and will have the opportunity to receive input for three years instead of two years from the people they represent.

We will run into certain situations, probably more by-elections will result because of the three-year term, but that is to be expected. The longer the term, the more chances there are of people passing away, of being stricken with illness which may cause them to resign, or for them to head to greener pastures. If a federal election were to come up, or a provincial election were sprung on Ontario, those people might want to run in that election.

Three years seems sensible to us, and in this particular section we will be supporting that change, when it comes about, for the three-year term in order that it may be the same in the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education as it is for other boards in Ontario. No doubt many of my colleagues will want to express their viewpoint on whether this would be a useful change or not.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those areas where there has never been, from the birth of Bill 127, any dissension from any of the parties in this Legislature. We did agree with the three-year term for municipal aldermen, so this is a logical extension of that.

However, one of the things that I cannot come to terms with -- and I know that right at this particular time we are not debating the amendment that the government is introducing under that particular section -- is the reason a bill such as Bill 127 could not be properly drafted as to even the housekeeping matters. Basically, it speaks to the whole content and substance of Bill 127, which has been said to have been poorly drafted, ill-conceived and should be withdrawn.

I find that a housekeeping provision requires amendment by the government in a new section, which has been added to an area that has not been a particular bone of contention in committee, nor was it referred to by anyone during the public hearings. However, the government is bringing in an amendment and I guess we will have more to say when that amendment is brought in. I will leave it at that.

5:10 p.m.

We would have no difficulty with the three-year term. I just want to ask a few questions of the minister. As I read this section, I wonder why it is needed in the bill to begin with. It talks about the boards of education being conducted by the same officers, etc. Basically, this does not give the minister or the government the power to establish the Metro board of education, when it is clearly the intention of the minister and the government to give the three-year period to the Metro members.

I have a question for the minister about Bill 46, which was dealt with in this House at the beginning of June. That bill gave her the necessary powers to effect that change. Basically, section 19 of Bill 46, so called, extends the term from two years to three years for all the duly elected trustees in Ontario. It was never my understanding that the trustees of the boards of education within Metropolitan Toronto were excluded from that provision. I understood that Bill 46 dealt with the whole province.

Perhaps the minister could give us some indication why that particular section is required in the bill. I consider it to be superfluous. The powers are already there under Bill 46, which was passed into law some time ago. I will leave it there. With a proper explanation from the minister, we would have no problem in supporting this section.

Mr. Chairman: Going in rotation, it is my understanding that the minister has an amendment to section 2, so if the minister wants to respond and also bring forward her amendment --

Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is it not customary to deal with the section before dealing with the amendment? We have started to deal with the section. Can she now introduce her amendment?

Mr. Chairman: At any time.

Mr. Boudria: Okay. I will speak on the amendment then.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure members are aware that the necessity for the existing subsection of section 2 is that this act must bring the term of office into line with that which is governed under the Municipal Elections Act. It is to make sure there is compliance between the two acts that the existing section is included. That is a requirement.

I am sure the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) also knows that had this act been passed before November 8, we might not have had to include certain specifics within it. However, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is a unique institution. The length of term of that school board must be amended in this act in order to make it comply with what has happened under the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2) The members of the boards of education mentioned in section 118 of the said act elected to office in the regular election in 1982 shall hold office for a term of three years and until their successors are elected and a new board organized."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Hereafter, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will fall into line under the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not prevent me from speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Grande: That is fine; you do not think that since I have spoken once on this section I cannot speak again. Basically, the minister should have allowed debate on section 1 and then moved her amendment, or at least she should have moved the amendment before --

Mr. Chairman: On section 2, it might have been my fault. As chairman of the committee, perhaps I should base acknowledged her first in terms of the amendment. It having been my mistake in the acknowledgement, we will allow full discussion. There is no problem. In rotation, the member for Prescott-Russell.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention to the comments made by my colleague the member for St. Catharines and also those of the member for Oakwood pertaining to section 2. I listened also to the amendment from the minister. I will make my comments on both the amendment and section 2. I may even throw in a few comments about the bill itself. I am sure if I do that at length you will bring me to order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are dealing with this section.

Mr. Boudria: I recognize that. The minister is explaining to me that we are dealing with this section. I am fully aware of that. I would never attempt to do anything that would make me speak on anything but the section.

Mais je voudrais quand même vous dire, M. le Président, qu'il est important que nous exprimions notre avis sur l'amendement de l'article 2, tel qu'il est proposé par le ministre. Comme vous le savez, M. le Président, nous avions en Ontario, depuis déjà quelques années, les élections municipales et scolaires tous les deux ans.

En raison d'un changement récent, ces élections auront lieu dorénavant tous les trois ans. Ce sujet a suscité certaines controverses ici, à l'Assemblée législative. Et comme mon collègue le député de Ste Catharines l'a exprimé -- cela s'est dit aussi dans les différents caucus des partis -- un conseiller scolaire et un élu municipal auront maintenant un mandat de trois ans, mandat qui pourrait être beaucoup plus long que celui d'un député fédéral ou provincial.

Comme vous le savez, M. le Président, il y a eu plusieurs élections fédérales et provinciales dans les dernières décennies. Sur la scène provinciale nous avons eu les élections de 1971, 1975, 1977 et 1981. Ainsi, en l'espace de dix ans, il y a eu quatre élections provinciales. Ceci veut dire que le mandat d'un élu provincial est plus court que celui d'un élu municipal ou scolaire, tel que l'amendement le propose et aussi dans l'article 2 du projet de loi proposé par le ministre.

On s'est inquiété du fait que, sur les scènes fédérale et provinciales, nous n'avons pas de mandat fixe; nous sommes députés tant que nous maintenons notre confiance dans le gouvernement, ou du moins lorsque la collectivité maintient sa confiance dans le gouvernement. Naturellement, ceci n'existe pas aux niveaux municipal et scolaire puisque ce n'est pas comme tel un système parlementaire. Le système diffère de celui que nous avons ici a l'Assemblée législative.

Certains autres ont manifesté le désir que des élections complémentaires aient lieu selon une fréquence plus grande au niveau municipal. Ceci est maintenant vrai puisque avec trois ans, on augmente les chances de voir des élus ne pas terminer leur mandat comme conseiller scolaire. Nous avons justement eu ici à l'Assemblée législative, deux élections complémentaires depuis l'élection de ce parlement en mars 1981. Donc un an et demi après l'ouverture de ce parlement, nous avons eu deux élections complémentaires. La même chose se produira sur les scènes scolaires et municipales.

Je suis pourtant personnellement inquiet : va-t-on avoir, comme par le passé, beaucoup plus de rendez-vous ou au contraire plus d'élections complémentaires?

Certains nous diront qu'il est très difficile d'intéresser les électeurs à aller voter pour une élection complémentaire. On sait que c'est déjà difficile sur la scène provinciale; ce le sera aussi aux niveaux municipal et scolaire, surtout lorsqu'il ne s'agira que de rajouter un conseiller scolaire.

On s'est inquiété, avant les dernières élections municipales et scolaires, du fait que les gens ne sortiraient pas pour aller voter. On a alors vu le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement dépenser à peu près un million de dollars pour une campagne visant à inciter les gens à se prévaloir de leur droit de vote et à aller aux urnes en grand nombre. C'est à cette campagne que le ministre attribue l'importante participation électorale à cette dernière élection municipale. Je pense toutefois qu'il s'attribue indûment les mérites de ce résultat. Souvenons-nous que le mandat dure trois ans et que ceci même constitue un encouragement à aller voter.

Je suis très heureux de voir que le trésorier de la province est ici présent dans l'Assemblée, puisque lui portera une grande attention au sujet dont on parle actuellement. Sans doute le ministre de l'Education lui a-t-il dit, « Il faut s'assurer qu'ils parlent bien de l'article 2 du projet de loi? » Je suis persuadé que le trésorier expliquera au ministre que la durée du mandat des élus scolaires et municipaux fait précisément partie de l'article 2.

Le ministre des Richesses naturelles partagera cet avis assurément, puisqu'il est resté ici pendant mon exposé; il reconnaîtra certainement que j'ai respecté notre accord de ne discuter que de l'article 2 du projet de loi.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: A point of order, Mr. Chairman: It strikes me, with my limited knowledge of French, that the honourable member is not on the subject of section 2. I bow to your greater familiarity with the French language to rule on that, but I point it out to you.

Mr. Chairman: I am afraid my familiarity is not much greater, I am sure, than that of the member who brought this to my attention. I will have to rely on all members to help to direct the chairman as to whether the honourable member is actually speaking to section 2. I am also going to have to call upon the member for Prescott-Russell to try to limit his discussion in French to section 2. I am just going to have to make a judgement call when the members on my right bring it to my attention that they do not think you are talking about section 2. That is the best I can do.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you I have spoken only on section 2 and on the amendment. In order for you and the minister to be quite sure, perhaps I should repeat some of the things I said. Shouldn't I?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, don't bother.

Mr. Boudria: I will summarize them then. I will explain briefly the essence of what I was saying.

I was saying to the House that, as the member for St. Catharines has said, there has been a lot of concern expressed about the change from a two-year to a three-year term of office in both municipal and school-board elections. One of the reasons for our concern is that a municipal or school board official will now have a longer term of office, on average, than a provincial or federal member. I explained, Mr. Chairman, that in 1971, 1975, 1977 and 1981 we had provincial elections.

Since we will be having the three-year term of office as proposed in this section and this amendment for school purposes in Metro Toronto --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In line with the Municipal Elections Act, which you have already passed.

Mr. Boudria: We are not discussing the Municipal Elections Act, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing section 2. The minister would be quick to bring me to order if I discussed something else.

Mr. Chairman: The minister does not have the floor.

Mr. Boudria: As I was expressing in my exposé a few moments ago, it now occurs to some of us that the term of office for municipal officials will be longer than that of federal or provincial members.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It will certainly be longer than yours.

Mr. Van Horne: That is just wishful thinking.

Mr. Boudria: The minister comments upon the length of time she thinks I will hold office here. I do not think it is for the Minister of Education to decide who the people of Prescott-Russell will elect to this chamber. It is the people of Prescott-Russell who, in their wisdom, have chosen whom they wish to stand here. They will do so again in the future and I am sure that they will do so wisely.

Mr. Stokes: Prescott-Russell is not even mentioned in the bill.

Mr. Boudria: As the member for Lake Nipigon says, that is not part of the bill. It was brought up by the Minister of Education in relation to my tenure of office, and length of tenure is part of the discussion of section 2 of the bill. I was comparing the period of office for provincial members to that of elected municipal officials of Toronto. As you will appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that is directly related to this section.

It was also mentioned that if we retained the two-year term of office for school purposes in Toronto and had three-year terms of office elsewhere, every second election in Toronto would be held in a nonmunicipal election year; we would have independent elections for school purposes, which would not be very satisfactory.

I am sure you, sir, would be concerned that voter turnout would probably decrease in those off-years in which we would have elections in Metro Toronto, exclusively. That would create complications. We would have a situation similar to that in Quebec, where school elections and municipal elections are held on different dates. They base a voter turnout which is even lower than the turnout here in Ontario.

I also mentioned that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) was claiming credit for the increased numbers who chose to vote in the municipal and school elections this year, but that his advertising did not have much to do with that. I would suggest it is because we are now going to have three-year terms of office, as expressed in section 2 of this bill, that the attitude of people has changed with regard to voting at the municipal and school-board levels.

This is what has influenced the electorate, not what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing claims credit for. I am sure the Minister of Education will agree that the people of this province decided to vote in greater numbers because of the three-year terms of office and not for the reasons expressed in this House by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we are, as the member for St. Catharines has said, in favour of this section and its amendment. Certainly I would be in favour of it even if the minister had read the section in what I hope will soon be one of two official languages in this province.

I am sure that you recognize, sir, in the summary that I have just made in the English language, that I certainly did not at any time speak to any other section in the French language than I did in the English language. I wanted you to be assured that I would not take undue advantage of the fact that some members may not have grasped every single word I said.

At the insistence of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), I felt I should give this summary in order to enable him to understand everything I had said in my original presentation. I would not want him to be unable to understand what I was expressing as far as section 2 of this bill and its amendment were concerned.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: On a point of privilege: The honourable member has indicated that the reason for my point of order was that I did not understand what he was saying. The problem was that I think I did understand what he was saying and therefore raised the point of order because he was not dealing with section 2 of the bill. I would just like to clarify that.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you accept the point that has been made? Just carry on.

Mr. Boudria: I will respond to that at the same time as I am carrying on, Mr. Chairman.

That is factually incorrect. I have spoken only to section 2 of the bill in the French language. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox did rise prior to your coming into this House to express the point that perhaps I was speaking to other sections of this bill or on matters that were not directly related to section 2.

When the member questioned whether I was speaking to section 2 of this bill, I felt it was very important that I summarize in English what I had said in the French language to ensure that he would be able to understand very well that I had not spoken on any other section but section 2 of Bill 127.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have said it seven times and it is still not correct.

Mr. Boudria: The minister is saying that I am being somewhat repetitious. I assure you that is not my intention. My only intention is to ensure that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox understands the summary I have made as to our position, or at least my own personal position, on section 2 of Bill 127 and its amendment.

I thought perhaps you had another point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Keep it right up. Do not let them intimidate you.

Mr. Boudria: I will not let the member for Prince Edward-Lennox --

The Deputy Chairman: Speaking to the amendment. I truly hope we can have that spoken to and that alone.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you are displaying this authority to ensure the members on the government side will not be unduly provocative and prevent us from having a full and thorough discussion on section 2.

The Deputy Chairman: And that all honour- able members will understand we have one thing before the House at this time.

Mr. Bradley: He won't be intimidated by the government members.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I know you would not be intimidated by government members. Perhaps others will, but you will display all the authority necessary.

The Deputy Chairman: Speak to the bill.

Mr. Boudria: Speaking not only to Bill 127 but rather to section 2 and its related amendment as proposed by the minister --

Mr. Bradley: A good amendment it is.

Mr. Boudria: -- we are in favour of the amendment and the member for St. Catharines has just expressed that we will be supporting this amendment.

Mr. Grande: When the minister introduced this amendment to section 2, she did not say why she needed it in the legislation. If I heard the minister correctly, she did say that if the bill had passed before November 8, then there would have been no need for this section. Since the bill did not pass before November 8, there is a need.

Let me ask the minister a question. Is she intending to say, because Bill 127 was not passed before November 8, it means that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board can no longer perform its functions as set out? If the nodding of her head means the Metropolitan Toronto School Board could perform its functions uninterrupted as a result of the municipal elections, then I do not see the need for that amendment at all. If she is basically saying there was a flaw in the draftsmanship of this amendment and, therefore, as a result of this bill coming before the committee of the whole House, she and her people in the ministry picked up that there was a flaw and that the legislation as it stood was not clear, then at least she should admit it.

Obviously her answer will determine to a tremendous extent what I and this party will be doing with this amendment. If it is the case that the Metro board today does not exist because it has not been duly set up as a result of the November 8 election, because its mandate expired on November 8, 1982, then I must say to the minister this party will definitely not support this amendment. This party is on record as not wanting the Metro school board in place anyway. I will let the minister answer the question and then I will proceed, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I will say it again and I hope I will say it more clearly, because I obviously did not clarify it sufficiently last time.

The present section 2, which deals with subsection 118(4), provides for a two-year term for the members of the board of the area municipalities, and the re-enactment of subsection 118(4) simply brings the Municipal Elections Act into play so that no need exists to refer to the length of term of office under that section.

In the meantime, this act retains a two-year term beyond the November 8 election. The addition of subsection 2 clarifies that the members elected on November 8 were elected for three years, notwithstanding that at that time the act said they were going to be elected for two years or at least at that time the current Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act said something about a two-year term. We felt it was important to clarify that so there would be no misconception about it, but it is my understanding that the Metro school board remains in place until a new board replaces it so that its function can continue whether this act is in place or not.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, let me continue with my remarks. Where does the amendment the minister is putting forth talk about the Metropolitan Toronto School Board? What I read is, "The members of the boards of education mentioned in section 118 of the said act..." And subsection 118(1) of the said act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, says:

"On and after the first day of January, 1967, there shall be a board of education for each area municipality, to be known respectively as, (a) The Board of Education for the Borough of East York; (b) The Board of Education for the Borough of Etobicoke; (c) The Board of Education for the City of North York; (d) The Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough; (e) The Board of Education for the City of Toronto; and (f) The Board of Education for the Borough of York."

There is no mention of the Metro school board. In section 2, which the minister says she needs so that the Metro trustees who are selected by their respective area boards can sit at Metro, there is no mention whatsoever of the formation of the Metro board, because it talks about the members of the boards of education mentioned in subsection 118(1). I read that and it does not mention the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

5:40 p.m.

We are saying that those elected "in the regular election in 1982 shall hold office for a term of three years." I repeat that this amendment and clause is superfluous because Bill 46, which I talked about before and which we passed in this Legislature in June of this year, gives the minister the power as part of the Education Act to allow for a three-year term for a trustee.

If the minister wants this section to extend the term of office of the trustees selected by their respective boards in Metropolitan Toronto to convene and therefore establish the Metro school board, this section just does not do that. There is no mention whatsoever of the Metro school board unless, of course, the Minister of Education and the government, when they refer in that particular section to the members of boards of education, do not accept that there are six area boards in Metropolitan Toronto and just mean the Metro school board.

I hope the minister will clarify that. As far as I am concerned, it is superfluous. It does not do what the minister intends it to do.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I definitely have misinformed the House in that this section deals precisely, as the member for Oakwood said, with boards of education for the areas that make up Metropolitan Toronto.

The reference to the members of the Metro school board is in section 125 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act which is in section 5 of the bill. This section refers only to the election for three years of the area board members. It was felt it was necessary, because of the primacy of the Metropolitan Toronto act, that there should be inclusion specifically of the term of office which is now prevalent as a result of the Municipal Elections Act to make sure the two acts are congruent rather than opposed to one another.

Mr. Grande: What does the minister mean, "the primacy of the Metropolitan Toronto act"? The primacy is of the Education Act if there is any primacy.

Bill 46, under which we have given every elected trustee in Ontario a three-year term, also applies to the area boards in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not intend to repeat myself but, to make it clear to the minister, the only thing we do not now have in place is the three-year term for the Metro trustees who are selected by their area boards to sit at Metro, because their term of office at the Metropolitan Toronto board level would end after two years, as the act states right now.

Therefore, if the minister wants to give those trustees the extension from two to three years, however many there are, 20 or 22, this amendment will not do it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think I just explained that I had misinformed the House that there was any relationship between this section and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. The member rightly states that this section refers only to the election of trustees within the area boards.

He is quite correct. It was simply to bring this act into congruence with the Municipal Elections Act, which was modified, and to ensure that there would not be conflict regarding the term. It was felt by legislators who know a good deal more about the writing of law than I do that this was the appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you very briefly one observation I have to make about this amendment. It may look as though the amendment has been an afterthought, as the member for Oakwood mentioned. But to my mind it does not appear to be an afterthought; rather, it appears to be the very justification for bringing Bill 127 forward.

Much has been made of the minister's whole idea of streamlining and rationalizing the educational process and policies, and in this specific instance in section 2 she is doing that, she is streamlining and rationalizing; but that, I should point out, is not the true reason why we would want to support the whole nature of Bill 127.

In fact, we would support section 2 if she were to throw out all the other sections which are irrelevant and which really cause irreparable harm to the whole educational process in the city of Toronto. If the minister were able to come to some kind of tradeoff by supporting section 2 as opposed to striking out all the rest of the sections, I think we would be very happy.

Mr. Bradley: Eminently reasonable thought.

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister says it is irrational. I do not happen to think it is irrational at all. The whole reason for producing Bill 12 is specifically this section. I think it makes sense, because it would be illogical to have municipal representatives, aldermen, represent their constituencies for three years and trustees represent their constituencies for two years and consequently spend a great deal of extra taxpayers' money in having extra elections. So in that specific instance it would make sense.

Having said that, however, let me make it very clear that the fact that both opposition parties will support this section is no indication whatsoever that we support any other section of this bill. The reason for this is very simple. We are convinced that most of these sections are incongruent and damaging because they take power away from teachers, from trustees and from the very reason this kind of process has been instituted in the first place, namely, parent power. I think you would be the first to agree, Mr. Chairman, knowing something about education.

I know the minister is looking askance at me, thinking in her own mind that she should come to some kind of agreement with the opposition parties as to whether she should scrap the rest of these sections and --

The Deputy Chairman: Just deal with the amendment and we will all be happy.

Mr. Ruprecht: If I may simply be so bold, I want to indicate that the reason we do not support any of these sections is that we believe that once the minister looks at the facts of the situation and at the petitions she has received and thinks of what happened when she was before the committee that discussed Bill 127, when literally hundreds of people came forward and said, "No, we cannot support Bill 127." I grant you, Mr. Chairman, when you look at the specific sections, as in this specific case of section 2, that there is a certain merit in suggesting that there should be congruence between the Municipal Act and this specific bill, which talks specifically about trustees.

5:50 p.m.

To reiterate, we want to make it very clear that we believe this education bill, Bill 127, is flawed in its very foundation. I say this knowing fully -- and the minister knows this full well -- what the response has been in the city of Toronto and, I might add, by some people who have come from other parts of the Metropolitan area, from other parts of the boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto.

The message, and I will end with this, is very clear. The Chairman knows, I know, and the minister knows full well, that some people who are ordinary parents have been activated by this specific bill only because people believe it is so destructive to the educational policy in Toronto. Some people have even gone to the expense of putting their hands in their own pockets and have produced material, have even produced three kinds of buttons to make it abundantly clear not only that they are opposing all the other sections but also that they are opposing the minister in her stubbornness to push Bill 127 down the throats of thousands and thousands of people in this Metropolitan area.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? Oh, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate the recognition, Mr. Chairman. I am feeling buoyed up by the minister of sweaters, who is here; I am pleased to see him all bundled up in the front row over there.

I rise to speak on this particular portion of the debate because I want to speak in favour of something in this bill. I find myself in the position of being able to speak in favour of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: All I ask the honour- able member is, do not repeat anything that has been said. After you have made your point then we can --

Mr. Bradley: What argument are you making? Would you elaborate on your reason.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to elaborate on some of my reasons for rising in support of this amendment which moves the three-year term, something of which I have been in favour for a good length of time. In fact, the first private members' motion I introduced in this Legislature and was able to speak to in this House was exactly on the three-year term and the need for a three-year term.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Are you really in your anecdotage now?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, I am in my dotage; I am not sure it is my anecdotage, but that is a good quip for a member with an askance eye, whatever that is. I thought it was a medical term; I was not sure. The wandering eye.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It isn't.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not.

I am pleased to support this amendment. I realize it is a housekeeping amendment, but it is vital that there be recognition, and I am glad that it is in here. I am also glad because of the importance of the office of trustee, even if the holders of such offices are held to a five per cent increase on their motley salaries or stipends at this point. I am glad it is in here.

I must also add and make it very clear that although I find myself able to rise with great enthusiasm to support this amendment, I am not sure I am going to be able to support any others that are introduced by the minister.

I just wanted this positive feeling to exude and fill the House at this point, because I am likely to add a great deal of negativism to the coming debate. When I speak negatively, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) in his sweaters will know, I speak at length. When I speak in favour, as people know, I often speak pithily.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Pithily?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I just wanted to be clear about that. I just wanted to make sure that the House did not miss my chance to jump in at this point in support of something that the Minister of Education has proposed.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amendment this time, I will be uncommonly brief on this section, because there are a couple of things I forgot to say last time when I was speaking to the section as a whole. I do not know whether you had a chance to sit in the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: I did.

Mr. Bradley: Then you will recall that even those who are most vehemently opposed to Bill 127 came before the committee and said, "If there is one section of this bill that we would like to see go through" -- as a separate bill, of course -- "it is the section that would be classified as housekeeping," which is the section that would permit the members of the boards of education in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to be elected for a three-year term.

We in the opposition said essentially the same thing. We recognize that the minister wants to get this bill through. We recognize that if she had her way, it would have been through the House weeks ago. But on this occasion we found many parts of the bill that were not acceptable to us; so we said, "Let's look for some parts of the bill that are supportable by the opposition."

Carrying on with the very positive note of the member for Scarborough West, we found this section to be acceptable. We also found another section that will be acceptable to us; it deals with remuneration, but I will not talk about it now, because the Chairman wants me to stay on this section. We will deal with that a little later.

The Deputy Chairman: If we pass this section, then we can go on and discuss the other one you are talking about.

Mr. Bradley: That is a consideration. But members of this House will recall that in committee I stated the fact that we could pass in one day a housekeeping bill that would allow the members of the various boards of education within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to be elected for a three-year term; we would pass that immediately, and we would guarantee that it would happen before the election.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would not believe you. Not even if you guaranteed it would I believe you.

Mr. Bradley: When it comes to believing, of course, the Minister of Education has not always provided factual information to members of the committee or members of the House.

The Deputy Chairman: I question what the honourable member is saying there.

Mr. Bradley: Inadvertently, of course.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege: I believe that statement should be withdrawn, because it is anything but factual.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. I will ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think he meant it was more than factual. Is that what you meant?

Mr. Bradley: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like you to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to suggest in any way that the Minister of Education would ever intentionally provide information that was not factually correct to the House, and at no time did I suggest that it was intentional. In fact, we have had an example -- and you were listening carefully this afternoon, Mr. Chairman -- of the minister providing information that was not factual to us, and she got up and corrected it.

The Deputy Chairman: As long as you have withdrawn the intent of your original statement.

Mr. Bradley: Well, certainly I would never want to impute those kinds of motives to the Minister of Education of this province, because I do not think she would ever intentionally want to mislead the House, I simply said she did not provide factual information.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you deal with the motion now? We are at the point where, with a bit of luck --

Mr. Bradley: Okay. We are back to the amendment that is before us. As I say, this could have gone speedily through the House if it had not been attached to the rest of this bill. It reminds us of some of --

Hon. F. S. Miller: You would not let a student in your class go on like this.

Mr. Bradley: Well, I will not respond to the interjection of the Treasurer --

The Deputy Chairman: No, please do not. Just allow yourself to deal with the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: -- because I know you want me to deal with the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Bradley: Sorry. I thought the member was up on a point of order. He is not.

The Deputy Chairman: No. You have the floor.

Mr. Bradley: I think I have clearly indicated our support for this aspect of the bill in this section, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of all our members, whether they are from Metropolitan Toronto or from other parts of the province, when I say that we can very much support this amendment. We are pleased that the minister is prepared to be as accommodating on this section as she could be. We only hope she will be as accommodating on the other sections when we bring forward amendments to those sections of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 2, as amended, carry? I heard some nays.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In m opinion the ayes have it.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

November 16, 1982