The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE PROJET D'AIDE FINANCIERE AUX INTERVENANTS

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988.

M. Chiarelli propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 39, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le projet d'aide financière aux intervenants.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Chiarelli: On 20 December 1990 I introduced this amendment for first reading and today we are debating it on second reading. Briefly, the Intervenor Funding Project Act, which was enacted in 1988 by this Legislature, provides that in hearings before two boards, the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Energy Board, it is possible for groups in the public interest to apply for intervenor funding.

The purposes of my amendment are as follows, and I will go through them. They are quite brief, but I think very significant. The definition of "board" in section 1 of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988 would be repealed and the following substituted:

"'board' means a joint board, the Ontario Energy Board, the Environmental Assessment Board or the Ontario Municipal Board."

What that would do is add to the inclusion of this act the Ontario Municipal Board as an eligible board for which intervenor funding might be awarded.

The second amendment is to change the definition of "proponent" in section 1. The existing definition would be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"'proponent' means a party whose undertaking, in the opinion of a funding panel, is the subject matter of the hearing or another party, individual or corporation, who, in the opinion of a funding panel, is potentially a major beneficiary of the decision of the board."

What that amendment would do is expand the definition of "proponent" so that it is not restricted to a group, an individual or a corporation that would receive a financial benefit, so that conceivably it could include as a proponent a municipality or some government agency.

When the Intervenor Funding Project Act was first enacted in 1988, it was voted in with the support of all parties in the Legislature. I might add that this identical amendment which is being proposed today was introduced in the last session by me, was debated in the House, given approval on second reading and referred to committee of the whole.

At that time, I might add, all parties and all speakers voted in favour of my amendments. There was a very broad consensus that the amendments that I was proposing were in fact very useful and ought to become the law of Ontario.

Of course, the second reading approval died on Orders and Notices when the 1990 election was called. I felt strongly enough about this particular issue so that in December 1990, in the current session, I reintroduced the amendments.

I might add that when the original legislation was before the Legislature by the previous government, essentially the same amendments that I proposed in the last session and in fact that are proposed again, were moved by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who was then the Environment critic and who is now the Minister of the Environment. She spoke very eloquently when the bill was passed in 1988 to add an amendment similar to mine.

In order to put these amendments in context, it is very important that we look at the Ontario Municipal Board and how it operates and functions. The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial body which makes very important decisions on quality of life and environmental concerns in the area of planning and development.

The board, as it has developed over the years, has developed rules of evidence as a court, rules of procedure as a court, and in its deliberations it gives the greatest weight in evidence to experts who come before it: expert planners, expert legal counsel, expert environmentalists, expert engineers. It is a very technical and usually very largely financed board in its hearings.

As I mentioned, the types of cases, usually the major cases before it, deal with environmental concerns and quality of life concerns. It deals with major amendments such as official plan amendments. It deals with major development, such as the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton or the Vanier arterial expressway expansion in Ottawa-Carleton.

Typically, there are three types of parties who come before the Ontario Municipal Board in a given major hearing. First of all, these are municipalities. There will be a major municipality or several municipalities making submissions before the board, and of course municipalities are well funded. They have municipal planners, they retain consultants and they have legal counsel, and they are in a very professional mode when it comes to making submissions before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The second type of person or group that is typically before the Ontario Municipal Board in any given case is a developer or a group of developers who are proponents or who have a very significant financial interest in the determination of the board. Once again, they are well financed. They have legal counsel and they have experts who come before the board because they know that the board will make its decision based on the evidence of experts.

1010

There is a third group that comes before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is usually an umbrella group of community associations and groups that are trying to represent a public interest of one type. Typically this party or group of parties before the Ontario Municipal Board does not have the means to retain expert legal counsel, does not have the financial means to hire the experts and therefore is not on a level playing field. They have a public interest to protect before these hearings. They are invited as citizens, active participants in the community, to come before the Ontario Municipal Board, yet they do not have the means to put themselves on an equal footing with the interests of the other parties, the municipality or the developers. So the main rationale is that we will have a level playing field created for citizens' groups coming before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I would like to refer to several quotes in support of my amendments. The first one I want to refer to is one from the member for Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Financial Institutions. He debated this issue when it was last before this House and he supported my amendment in saying:

"The first important reason is that, as we move through a growing era of public concern and public participation in our regulatory processes, we have to begin to understand that, as government and as representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to fund the mechanisms that allow us to ascertain, to the best of our ability, what the real public desire and need is in any circumstance."

I also want to refer to a quote from the late Senator Eugene Forsey. There is no person, I think, better qualified to talk about the democratic process and citizen participation than the late senator, who said, not too long before his death, something I think very significant and profound:

"If things need changing, it is the people, not the politicians, who should change them. If they do not need changing, it is the people, not the politicians, who should decide not to change them." These are very profound words and I think very significant in the present context.

As we know, we have just had a legislative committee on the Constitution spend five weeks criss-crossing this province and we have also had the Spicer commission, which has given us a message that people in Canada and people in this province feel disenfranchised. They feel that they do not have a say in major decisions that governments make on their behalf.

I am nearing the end of my time period. I will speak a little bit later, but I do want to say that by passing this amendment, this Legislature will be sending a message out that we want to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise people.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on private member's Bill 39, An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. The purpose of this bill is to add the Ontario Municipal Board as a board to which the act applies. The reference to a major financial beneficiary in the definition of "proponent" is broadened to include other areas in addition to financial matters.

The Intervenor Funding Project Act established a three-year pilot project to investigate the use of intervenor funding to give public intervenors easier access to three regulatory tribunals. Those were the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and a joint board appointed under the Consolidated Hearings Act and composed of members from the environmental board and the Ontario Municipal Board.

I have always believed that intervenors contribute important evidence when matters come before the Ontario Municipal Board. Individuals know that the best way to become a part of the process is to organize or join a local citizens' group. This has several advantages. By teaming up with others who have similar concerns, people will have a unified and stronger influence on the decision-making process and people can also pool information and resources to share the work and the decision-making that participation entails.

However, participating in a hearing invariably entails some costs, and it could include money that individuals or community organizations simply do not have at their disposal. Typically, costs might include fees for lawyers, fees for expert assistance, travel and accommodation expenses and costs of materials used for presentations, such as photographs or graphics.

I personally believe in having equal resources available to individual intervenors or intervenor groups, provided they demonstrate they have a clear interest in the case, provided they demonstrate they have attempted to raise funds through other means such as community fund-raising, and provided they demonstrate they have a genuine need for financial assistance. This would greatly enhance the quality of the hearings by giving these people the opportunity to raise and canvass important issues that otherwise might not have emerged.

I had an example in my own riding a few years ago with regard to intervenor funding, and it was really over a landfill site in Tiny township, site 41 as it was called. The municipality opposed it. The citizens from the community opposed it. It was a group of other municipalities that thought that site should be located in this municipality. In cases such as that I believe it is important that intervenor funding be made available to that municipality and to those citizens.

However, I do have some problems in some cases where individuals object to certain aspects of activity that takes place in a community who want to object for their own personal reasons. I think intervenor funding should be made available to those people and to local municipalities that have that important interest in principle.

There are some major concerns with regard to intervenor funding that I have had over the years. Many lawyers and consultants end up with all the money, and the fact is that a person with a lot of common sense could give the same evidence at no cost. There are people in society today who, when they see money coming from government, believe that there is no end to it. So I do have a major concern with regard to extending it to the municipal board on those facts. However, I support the bill in principle. I think there are people, such as the case I had indicated, who do have a major, genuine interest.

I believe there should be a mechanism whereby intervenor funding would be a process that would be simple and easy to determine whether people are going to qualify or not, not a lot of red tape before they would get their decision. As to the major concerns that I have, I have seen it with the Ontario Environment ministry. The Ministry of the Environment has been the major area where these activities have taken place. I think that it should be streamlined. As I said, I support this bill in principle, but the fact is that it has to be right and proper.

Hon Ms Carter: I want to give a different perspective on this. This situation is coming to a sunset conclusion, so that we are going to have to look at an overall replacement, not a piecemeal approach. This in fact is being done by the government, so this is what I want to say: We oppose this initiative because in the circumstances we are going to have to replace our whole approach to this issue. Therefore, we want to do it all at once, comprehensively, and that is how we want to approach it.

1020

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, we were going to start using our 15-minute provision. As you are aware, I also have a two-minute wrapup at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: That is fine: the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: I just wanted to say very briefly that yes, the minister is correct that there is a sunset provision in the legislation. It sunsets in, I believe, March 1992.

The Deputy Speaker: You are not entitled to respond to what she has said. You debate the issue.

Mr Chiarelli: I am debating the issue, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: That is right; okay.

Mr Chiarelli: I am debating the question whether or not it is appropriate to pass this amendment in view of the sunset provision.

The sunset provision indicates that the Intervenor Funding Project Act can be extended by order in council. There is nothing in the legislation itself which says that it should be reviewed. There is nothing the government has indicated at the present time which says that it is being reviewed. It would be my hope that the members on the government side, in view of the fact that they have voted in favour of this particular provision on two previous occasions, would vote in favour of it now and would also vote in favour of referring it to the standing committee on administration of justice, and that the Attorney General would refer the issue of sunsetting and reviewing the entire operation of the bill to the justice committee so that it can be looked at very comprehensively. In the meantime, there are significant groups in every part of Ontario which are looking for intervenor funding and which ought to be covered, as the Minister of the Environment said in 1988, under the Ontario Municipal Board auspices for this type of funding.

I would say that if the whip is out on the government side to vote against this particular amendment at this time, I think it would be very hypocritical indeed. In fact, the Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, would well know that the community in Ottawa-Carleton is very animated and very actively lobbying in favour of this amendment. I think it would be really negligent if the member for Ottawa Centre has not been able to convince her cabinet colleagues and her caucus colleagues to support this amendment, which has been supported actively by every umbrella citizens group in Ottawa-Carleton for the last three years.

I am going to give up the floor now so that my colleagues can have some additional time, but I do say to the members on the government side that I really believe they have an obligation, given their previous statements and given the present demand by public interest groups in the province, to support this amendment.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide some brief comments about Bill 39. This bill essentially is a bill that adds the Ontario Municipal Board as one of the boards for intervenor funding and in that way amends the Intervenor Funding Project Act,1988.

I think that in principle, when we look at the fact of adding that board to the Intervenor Funding Project Act, I can support this piece of legislation. I can do that because the municipal board does many things which affect the day-to-day lives of the citizens in every community in this province. The municipal board has an effect on housing; it has an effect on municipal infrastructure; it has an effect on the environment; it has an effect on agricultural land; it has an effect on municipal development and on municipal taxation. All of these, and I am sure there are many other items as well, are subjects of Ontario Municipal Board decision-making.

It is important that individuals and ratepayers' groups, people who are not necessarily the most affluent members of a community or the most affluent advocates within a community, have an equal opportunity to present evidence before a municipal board with the use of experts with the proper legal help, because they have to convince essentially a panel of judges. They also have to have the opportunity to respond to the evidence presented by corporations that have the money -- and by that I mean developers, corporations, private concerns -- to appear with their experts, to appear with their lawyers and to pay with money that is a cost of doing business, which is not money that is taxable; it is deductible money for those corporations. Municipalities present evidence at the municipal board. They pay with taxpayers' money. What about individuals? That is why this bill is an important bill.

However, there is a caveat. There is a part of this bill that I have difficulty accepting, and that is the change in the definition of "proponent." The proposed amendment states that the proponent does not have to be a financial beneficiary, just a major beneficiary. That causes me some concern because it is the proponent who pays for the intervenor funding, and certainly when we are talking about a private concern as opposed to a municipal concern, if that private concern does not have a major financial interest, why should it be paying the costs of the intervenors? That is certainly in my eyes a caveat and makes it somewhat difficult to support this bill totally, although I do support it in principle.

I would point out, and my time is short, that the Intervenor Funding Project Act is a good act. It provides the necessary protection in section 7 so that intervenors cannot be involved in a frivolous way within the proceedings of a board. I just want to quote what section 7 says so that people know what the eligibility is for intervenor funding. Section 7 of the act says, "Intervenor funding may be awarded only in relation to issues...which, in the opinion of the funding panel," which decides whether the funding will be given, "affects a significant segment of the public; and...which, in the opinion of the funding panel, affects the public interest and not just private interests." So people cannot come to this board and obtain intervenor funding for something that is frivolous.

In addition, section 7 sets out certain tests as to whether the funding should in fact be available, so you cannot just show up and out of the blue expect to obtain money without meeting, really, a seven-part test. I think the protections are there.

The idea of expanding this bill and the provisions for intervenor funding to the OMB are, in principle, something that I can personally accept. I do have the one caveat dealing with the definition of "proponent."

1030

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate in the debate today, I would like to speak in favour of the motion by the member for Ottawa West, which I believe is very timely, especially considering the comments by the Minister of Energy, who is here in the Legislature this morning.

I would remind the minister, and all colleagues in the House, that this is private members' hour. I was quite surprised to hear during this private members' hour debate that there was a government review of this very important matter of intervenor funding. We have not heard this from the government before. We do not know how this review is being conducted, where it is being conducted and what kind of public input there will be in this review. I believe her comments speak to why this Legislature should today be supportive of the proposal put forward by the member for Ottawa West, especially if the government is reviewing it, because by sending the member's bill to a committee of the Legislature, the government can have that review with full public debate, full public discussion in an open public forum instead of, as has been the habit of this NDP government, behind closed doors.

Today, for the very first time, we heard that there is a review that has been undertaken and I would urge the members of the NDP caucus who are here in the House today to remember the traditions of their caucus and of their party. They have supported the concept of intervenor funding. They have supported this type of legislation on numerous occasions. Their own Minister of the Environment, in recent times, has supported this legislation. I think it is quite outrageous. I am sure that the members of the NDP caucus are not going to stand for having a minister stand in the House during private members' hour and dictate to all of them what their position will be, simply because the government is conducting an internal, private, hidden, secret review.

Surely private members' hour means more to the members of the NDP caucus and they will stand up today and support this legislation and this proposal by the member for Ottawa West, which they have supported time and time again in this House whenever there was an opportunity to debate and to discuss the issue of intervenor funding.

I can only say that the legislation and the merits of the legislation are clear. The Minister of Energy stood in her place and acknowledged the need for this kind of legislation and said the government supports the intent of the legislation, but it opposes this private member's initiative because of some secret government study that is taking place behind closed doors.

I say again to the minister, who is in the House today, and to her colleagues on the government benches that by standing in their places in support of this legislation during private members' hour, they will have an important opportunity to send a message to the cabinet and to the government. The message that they will able to send is that private members' hour is an opportunity for every member of this House to express his or her point of view on important issues of the day, that they will have an opportunity during private members' hour not to be dictated to by the government and not to stand in their places and have to support simply the position that has been suggested to them by a minister in the House during private members' hour.

I expect that we will today see them stand in their places and support the bill of the member for Ottawa West and his fine proposal, and support sending it to committee so that it can have the kind of full public discussion and full public debate and scrutiny that it deserves.

Mr Arnott: I would like to congratulate the member for Ottawa West on his proposal of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. I have some limited reservations about the concept of intervenor funding. However, I know that in the past the New Democrats have been very supportive of it and I look forward to seeing the recorded vote.

I know that public interest groups should have an opportunity to apply to become intervenors and receive intervenor funding from time to time, since the principle has been established. I would like to speak about some interesting implications that this bill has for my riding.

Puslinch township in the south of my riding has been involved in a lengthy OMB hearing which finished a few months ago. It took a number of months. The township took the position that it had to defend its official plan against aggregate mining policies that were coming forward. There were a number of applications for aggregate mining in the township that were, in the opinion of the township, running counter to what it wanted to do.

The township has been faced with a legal bill of $243,662.30. For a small municipality, that is a very significant sum of money.

They have recently asked me to assist them in attempting to receive a meeting with the Premier, and I am certainly in the process of doing that. I hope the Premier will in fact meet with the township to discuss his past interest in intervenor funding and his past support of the concept so that we can see if the provincial government will be interested in assisting the township in this way.

Mr McGuinty: It is my pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and it is a particular pleasure because it addresses an ideal I think we all hold, and that is equal access to justice.

I think we should acknowledge that there is at present in Ontario no equal access to justice. There are still many cases where access can only be had at expense, and sometimes at great expense. As a practising lawyer, it became all too familiar to me when I was involved with cases where people with legitimate complaints, cases where people's rights had been breached, simply could not afford to seek legal redress or recourse.

The legal aid system goes some way in addressing or remedying that particular situation, but it only addresses lower-income groups. As a general rule, it is restricted to addressing matters which arise before our courts, and in spite of legal aid, justice is still in many cases realistically denied to those people for whom it would be too expensive, particularly those in the middle-income groups. Legal aid does not address the matter of intervenor funding before administrative tribunals and the bill introduced by the former government attempted to remedy that.

I think it is important to remember that people's rights are affected by administrative tribunals in a very real way, as well. In order to have their rights addressed, in order to make presentations before tribunals, it again costs money and sometimes it costs a great deal of money.

Another feature of some of our administrative tribunals is that they often entertain matters of dispute between parties, as the member for Ottawa West mentioned, of unequal strength, and by "strength," again, we are often referring to financial strength. Financial ability often, unfortunately, enables one to make better preparation in terms of a hearing, to present better evidence, to pay for better expert witnesses.

The Intervenor Funding Project Act went some way in addressing the problem; however, it restricted the remedies to hearings before the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the joint board. The member for Ottawa West's bill addresses this deficiency to some extent by broadening the scope of the intervenor funding to allow it to apply to hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board is notorious for holding hearings in many cases where parties of unequal strength often come to lock horns, and again, we are talking here about one party having much greater financial strength than another party.

I think we should take advantage of the trial period. We should seize the opportunity to inject another element. I do not think any of us should be heard to say that we are going to put a particular group's rights on hold, and that is often the case.

We had a recent case in Ottawa where a legal bill to the tune of $80,000 was presented to Ottawa's New Edinburgh Community Alliance Inc, which presented its case before the Ontario Municipal Board, and it had, because of existing inequalities, no recourse to intervenor funding.

1040

I think as well that we should recognize the presentation prepared in a brief by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a brief presented to the standing committee on government agencies regarding the Ontario Municipal Board. It was prepared by Richard Lindgren, counsel, and it is dated 7 February 1991. It is a very thoughtful, lengthy brief. I want to quote from it. It indicates at one point:

"Because of its diverse legislative authority, the Ontario Municipal Board plays an important role in shaping the character of Ontario's urban and rural environment. It is noteworthy that there are very limited appeal rights with respect to OMB decisions, and hence the board often functions as the final arbiter of disputes involving matters of considerable public interest.

"The virtual finality of OMB decisions makes it imperative that all relevant evidence, information and opinions are presented fully and effectively before the board. However, there has been increasing concern among environmental law association counsel that certain OMB practices and procedures are undermining public participatory rights and public confidence in the OMB hearing process, especially where environmental issues are involved. In particular, the Canadian Environmental Law Association concerns focus primarily on the following matters:"

It then outlined a list, and at the top of the list, it makes reference to the lack of intervenor funding in OMB cases. I want to quote from it just a bit more. It goes on to provide:

"In a 1988 submission to the Attorney General, the Canadian Environmental Law Association argued that the intervenor funding legislation should apply to the OMB. It is noteworthy that the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, also supported the extension of the intervenor funding legislation to the OMB. In 1991, CELA's view remains unchanged, and we submit that the Ontario Municipal Board must be brought within the ambit of intervenor funding legislation for a number of reasons."

It then goes on to provide those reasons in a very thoughtful, methodical and emphatic way, many of which have been outlined today by the member for Ottawa West.

I want to second the member for Ottawa West's statements when he made reference to Ottawa-Carleton's hope and support for this bill. I have been approached by a couple of community groups in my riding that are expressing concerns with respect to presenting their cases and the financial problems they are going to encounter for matters appearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

This is an opportunity, again, that I feel we should seize. We have a grand experiment in motion at the present time. I think we have nothing to lose by injecting another element which in fact goes a long way towards redressing a problem that presents to a great number of people, community groups in particular, who are having difficulty presenting their cases before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Finally, I would like to re-emphasize that what we are talking about here in a very fundamental way is addressing the ideal that we hold, and that is of attaining a particular goal of equal access to justice. This goes a long way towards ensuring that, with respect to matters before the Ontario Municipal Board, the parties will be enabled to present their cases on an equal footing, regardless of their financial capability, regardless of their particular expertise, because they will be able particularly to retain counsel, experts, and proceed on an equal footing.

Mr B. Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to talk on this bill. I am opposed to this bill on the ground that I think there is too much intervenor funding now. To give intervenor funding to fight the OMB right now would be a mistake. The OMB is full of cases it cannot even get to, and with more intervenor funding we would have more people going there and at this time it would just be ridiculous for it to happen.

Also, it is piecemeal. I do not think we need to be patching on; we need something to straighten the whole mess out. Intervenor funding has been around for a little while, but not with the OMB, and at this time I do not think it should be there.

We do elect municipalities, and unfortunately what seems to be happening in Ontario is that people are getting little groups all the time and forming their own opinions, rather than listening to the municipalities they elect. If they have problems with some of the decisions municipalities make, the time to show that is in elections. They get the chance then to tell people they are not happy with it. But if we start intervenor funding for the OMB, we are going to have people complaining about porches and just down to anything they do not like.

One of my colleagues talked about frivolous objections. Well, there do not seem to be any frivolous objections any more in this House. The OMB seems to accept every objection and it goes to the OMB and this why it is in problems. As I say, it is backed up for over a year now to get a case on and, if we start intervenor funding, there will be problems.

Mr Silipo: I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill. I think it has probably become known that it is my attitude in private members' hour to start off by basically being supportive of initiatives that come forward from individual members unless there is something in the proposed law or resolution that I find completely unacceptable.

In this case, while I may share some of the reservations that have been mentioned by other speakers, I find that the concept that is in the bill of expanding the application of the Intervenor Funding Project Act to include the OMB is a worthwhile pursuit. Any step forward made to try to expand, in effect, the access to tribunals and indeed through that the principle of access to justice I think is worth while supporting.

There may be very good reasons why there are some problems with simply taking this particular step without taking others, but it seems to me that is the kind of thing that can be worked out through the committee process if and when this bill gets there. If there are other considerations in terms of timelines, etc, that come into play, they can also be considered, as well as the issue of possibly expanding the scope of the bill and looking at how it fits into other pieces of legislation.

For that reason I will be supporting this bill, because I think debate at this point of the proceedings is in fact debate on the principle of a bill, and certainly the principle that is espoused in this bill is one I can support.

I do want to say -- and this will really be an expansion of something I have said in the past in referring to the comments from the member for Oriole, and I regret she is not in the House at the moment. It is incumbent on all of us, if we really are trying to and are serious about making this session every Thursday morning as one that ought to cross partisan divisions, that we be careful in the way in which we try to read what may be coming out of either ministers or other members on the government side in terms of their comments.

Certainly, I do not think there is anyone on the government side dictating to any of the members of the government side how to vote or what to do on issues like this. We obviously have our discussions about private members' bills, as we may do about other issues, but we come to this House on these Thursday mornings very clearly able and willing to stand up and vote as we see befits each and every one of the proposals that come before us. When we start to try to read any more than that into the positions that might be coming forward from individuals on this side of the House, I think it certainly does not assist in the building of the kind of relations that need to be built, particularly around private members' bills and resolutions, but hopefully on other ventures as well.

I reiterate that, and I will be happy to stand up and continue to make that point throughout the proceedings as private members' bills come forward, although I hope that as time goes on it will be less and less necessary to do that and that more and more of our time can be devoted to looking really in a critical way and in a constructive way at the proposals that come forward. Just to sum up, I will be supporting this bill because I think it expands the concept of access to justice for groups beyond what exists now in law, and for that reason is something worthy of support.

1050

Mr Chiarelli: I want to thank the member for Dovercourt for his support and for putting the issue in context of the private members' hour.

I want to speak most directly to the people of Ottawa-Carleton today because the people of Ottawa-Carleton really support this legislation and have done so for the past three years.

Last week I sent a letter, personally delivered, to the Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, asking for her support. I was very disappointed to see the first speaker for the government stand up today, being a minister, being opposed to it, and what appears to be a majority on the government side nodding their heads in agreement opposing this.

I say to the member for Ottawa Centre that she is going to have to answer to Russ Barton from the Federation of Community Associations in Ottawa-Carleton; she is going to have to answer to Barry Wellar from the Carlingwood Action Group; she is going to have to answer to Bob Fortin from the Civic Forum; she is going to have to answer to Hillary Pearson from the New Edinburgh Community Alliance; she is going to have to answer to Mark Deuhez from Heritage Ottawa.

The overwhelming majority of people in Ottawa-Carleton support this legislation, have communicated their support for this legislation. I am very disappointed to see that the minister from eastern Ontario has not been able to convince her caucus colleagues, in fact her cabinet colleagues, to support this amendment. There is tremendous support in Ottawa-Carleton for it and there will be a tremendous amount of disappointment.

In fact, I really believe that if the NDP members vote against this bill today they are going to be hanging out to dry the member for Ottawa Centre, who ought to be here supporting it. Not only will they be hanging out the member for Ottawa Centre to dry, they will be hanging out all those sincere, honest people in community public interest groups who will continue not to have a level playing field.

ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS ÉLECIRIQUES

Mr Jordan moved second reading of Bill 67, An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems.

M. Jordan propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 67, Loi concernant les installations électriques.

Mr Jordan: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the members of this Legislature for the opportunity this morning to speak in support of Bill 67.

The two main points of this bill are public safety and economics for the people of Ontario. I would like first to talk about safety. As many of us are aware, electricity is one of the most efficient, safe, clean and environmentally friendly of all energies used in Ontario. It is extremely versatile and has been recognized as the engine and power of the economy of this province. This energy can also be very dangerous, even deadly, if the installation or the handling of it is not properly understood.

Over the years, Ontario Hydro has taken the responsibility of providing the required inspection staff capable of overseeing the installation of wiring and connection of equipment in the province. The ongoing problem has been to properly identify the person responsible for the actual wiring and connection of the equipment. The person identified to the Ontario Hydro inspection staff does not necessarily have to be the person doing the work.

This bill would require the trade licence number of the person accepting responsibility to be placed on the application for inspection. This procedure would allow a preliminary check on a proposed installation by a qualified tradesman. I want to clarify that this does not prevent an individual from doing minor wiring at his residence or cottage or whatever, but it does require that he has discussed his plan with a professional tradesman to the extent that that person is agreeable that he may use his number on his application for inspection. This in turn gives the inspector someone he can follow up with; if there should be defects or whatever in the wiring, the inspector then has a contact who understands the code book and understands the message that comes out itemizing the defects on that particular job.

Under the present setup, those defects go to an individual -- it could be a grandfather, a grandson -- and that person does not know the code book or does not understand the defects that are being presented. So in the interest of safety what I am attempting to do with this bill is encourage people to consult with a professional tradesman before even purchasing the material, because as members know today, the technology changes, and the difference in the types of equipment available is ongoing.

Ontario Hydro makes an effort through its inspection staff, with evening seminars in conjunction with the Ontario Electrical League, to keep the tradesmen and the profession up to date on the Ontario electrical code. But to try to keep every individual up to date is impossible, so what happens is that an individual applying for a wiring permit sometimes, and I have had occasion to witness this myself, has invested a lot of money in equipment that is outdated and is no longer acceptable by the code. It could be the type of insulation on the wire; it could be the type of terminal box that is to be used.

At this time I think it would be well to mention that the new 1990 Ontario Electrical Code, revised, has just been issued and is effective as of 4 March 1991. Applications were still accepted under the old revision until Monday of this week, so I think it is timely that we take a serious look at this at this time.

Consultation with a professional would allow a check on the equipment. It would give assurance to the inspection department that somebody, as I say, who understands the trade has in fact been consulted. Members could imagine the poor public relations that tend to be developed by the inspector arriving at a residence, at a recreation room or at a cottage, and finding that equipment was bought on sale and the person marketing that equipment is under no real responsibility to advise that it is no longer approved, or may not even know that. So when the inspector advises the customer that he is sorry that this equipment is no longer approved and that it has to be removed, there is a tremendous cost involved to the customer. There is an administration cost and a labour cost involved to Ontario Hydro and each individual in the province of Ontario, because that cost is reflected in the rate per kilowatt-hour that we pay on our Hydro bill.

1100

What is happening at the present time is that when the inspector goes out he actually becomes part of a skills development scene where he is in fact training an individual to be familiar with the code book, to be familiar with equipment, and because of his training with people, he tries to do that in such a way that there are no hard feelings against him or the Ontario Hydro utility.

This may be very fine, but the cost of inspection is increasing every day. Ontario Hydro is asking for a considerable increase in rates, and I see this as a very real opportunity to turn the skills development part over to a professional tradesman who the individual is free to consult with at any time and use that number, or if he is a tradesman himself, use that number on the application for inspection.

It has another administration saving in that the office people have a chance to have a direct contact through that number to that tradesman when corrections are required.

If you think of residences with computers and the different types of appliances that are now being used in homes, I believe if you think about that for a little, you can understand the need of professional training. I do not mean when you are replacing a light fixture. Replacement of that type of equipment does not require an inspection per se, but when you are doing service work, a service entrance -- for instance, in the new revisions, it used to be in a large residence you could come directly in to, say, a 400-amp splitter box and take six feeders off that box to feed different areas of that large home. That is now not acceptable, as of Monday of this week. You must have a main switch prior to that equipment for safety reasons so that when you pull that switch, whether it is the fireman or whoever it is, you know that everything in that house is electrically dead.

These are the kinds of things that an individual, without consultation with a professional in the trade, can spend a lot of money on and have a lot of hard feelings about and, in my thinking, could easily become part of the group by consulting with either his supplier of electrical equipment or some friend of his in the electrical business who does have a licence and is willing to consult on the job.

I would hope that the people here today would try to understand the seriousness of this relative to safety.

Mr Offer: Let me say what a great pleasure it is for me to join in on the debate this morning on this piece of legislation put forward by the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew.

At the outset let me indicate that it had been our intention that both myself and the member for Timiskaming would also be speaking. Unfortunately, the member has been called away on urgent constituency business. We recognize that difficulty, that the member is not going to be able to speak on this particular issue as a result of a matter of urgency in his riding. However, it presents to me, of course, the opportunity to speak at some greater length on this particular piece of legislation, and for that certainly we look forward to it.

The piece of legislation, let me say at the outset, is one which I agree with in principle, because it is a piece of legislation which has as its principle, I believe, the issue of safety, and I believe this particular piece of legislation is timely in its introduction and surely timely as to the debate taking place.

Why I say that is because it was just last March, 4 March of this year, that the 1990 Electrical Safety Code became effective, and in that code there were a variety of changes, a variety of amendments. I think that, although I believe there to be something in the area of 400 changes -- it is impossible for me to speak to those at this time -- it does bring to the fore the issue of not only the complexity of electrical installation, but also that its installation is one which is not a static type of profession. It is one which is constantly changing.

I have had occasion to pick up an article by Roy Hicks, the chief electrical inspector of Ontario Hydro, and he has spoken at some length as to some of those changes. For instance: "Every consumer's service must now have a single disconnect switch. The Ontario relaxation that allowed up to six subdivisions on a residential service without a single main switch has been eliminated. This means there will be one and only one switch to disconnect the power in a dwelling unit when service work is being done or in the event of a fire."

A second change is that: "Consumer service conductors enter a dwelling unit above grade where practicable. This eliminates the chance for water to enter service panels and switches due to leaks in the service conduit.

"Also at the service panel, there is a new requirement that main switches and panelboards in rooms or areas of combustible construction be mounted such that the back surface is not in contact with or within 50 millimetres (two inches) through air of a material having a flame spread rating greater than 25."

These are but three changes. If time permits, I might have occasion to run through a few others, but it does speak to the necessity in the area of installation of people to be well acquainted with not only what the code is, but also to be acquainted with the fact that the code is constantly changing and that it is an obligation, a responsibility to try to keep abreast of these changes.

This is a piece of legislation which is not just applicable to the commercial sector. I think that is an important aspect to bring forward. I think that many people, when taking a look at legislation such as this or in fact the standards code, seem to immediately draw a connection between that and the commercial sector and feel that much of the work is done by accredited electricians. In fact, a great deal of work is done within our own homes: people doing rec rooms, a variety of additions to their homes. The use of computers in homes may necessitate change. Fax machines are now becoming almost commonplace, although I do not state that as a fact; I just state that it is not as surprising any longer when someone does have a fax machine, a computer setup with graphics, with printers and a variety of other electrical appliances in their homes today which were not in their homes 5 or 10 years ago, or even contemplated. It is important, if there is going to be a change in the electrical characteristics of a home, that that work be done by someone who is qualified.

I recognize that a great deal of the work is done by home owners. That is their right. That is in many ways a recreation. I believe that this bill speaks to the fact and to the issue that it is not against the home owner or the relative performing the work, but rather that the work, which is of an increasingly complex nature, be at least supervised by an individual who is accredited, who is qualified. That is what this particular piece of legislation speaks to, and because the work under this piece of legislation is one which suggests guidance, advice or in fact hands-on assistance in a very dangerous and complicated matter, it is one which I certainly can support in principle.

1110

I move back to some of the changes to the code. I think that we should preface everything by recognizing that in the code there have been 450 changes to the electrical safety code, about 40 deletions and indeed 30 appendix B changes. This is important to just recognize as having happened, and when we keep in mind these changes and additions and deletions, on one hand, and on the other hand we recognize that there are a great many electrical pieces of work being done in homes, we want to try to marry the two, to make certain that that work is being done, supervised or assisted by accredited electricians. I do not see anything wrong, I do not see anything surprising in that type of principle, in that type of direction, and it is for that that I support the piece of legislation.

A few other changes, just to once more bring home the fact of these types of matters: There has been an additional requirement that will affect the bundling of non-metallic sheathed cables. Some here might say, "Well, my goodness, why is this person becoming so complex in this area?" In fact, this really talks to the concern of the overheating of a cable when they are bundled together. I do not have to speak in this Legislature as to the tragic consequences of overheating, what that can potentially cause and the tragedies that can result from it. These are of course matters which we, as all members of the Legislature, must keep in mind and must, I believe, have as our responsibility and obligation to address them as best we can, and this particular piece of legislation I believe does.

Now, I speak in support of the principle, but I do wish to add certain concerns, and I do not want everyone to say: "Oh, here it comes. The member is now going to really rip apart the piece of legislation." No, that is not the case. I do speak about some concerns as I was taking a look at some of the readings over the bill and certainly some of the articles which have been written about the changes.

We have to recognize, in a sense, the workability of the bill. When we say that work will be supervised -- I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that was what the member for Lanark-Renfrew referred to -- sponsored by accredited electricians, it sounds good, it sounds right, but I think we have to take a look at what is the liability of the sponsoring electrician. What are the questions that electrician will ask in terms of his or her sponsorship? What will be the case of an electrician stating to a home owner, "If this is the work you are going to do, this is how it should proceed," and then be signing his name to it, in essence, which may, if there has not been that hands-on help, result in some problem, result in some deficiency which Ontario Hydro may have uncovered, result in some damage or destruction?

The electrician will say, "Well, I need some protection in a certain liability sense." It is not, I believe, enough to say that we are just going to have an accredited electrician sponsor a particular piece of work without going further and saying that electrician is most likely going to be asking questions as to the liability that he or she is potentially holding himself or herself out to.

It may very well be that in order to get an electrician to so sponsor any particular work, which in a home can be very complex -- and I have gone through some of the changes in the code which make that quite evident -- he may say, "Listen, I am not going to put my name or number to that particular piece of work without having to be there." That, of course, talks to whether in fact we are potentially creating a barrier, even for the most right reasons, to people doing the work by themselves in their home, and then there are all the costs that may arise, the cost of the work and items of this nature.

I say that this piece of legislation, once more, is one which I certainly agree with in principle. I think it has as its fundamental basis safety. I believe that to be an issue which all members of this Legislature should be in support of. I think it also reflects that the code has just recently gone under massive change, that it is a code which is constantly changing, that we have a responsibility to make certain that the work that is being done, not just in the commercial sector but also in the private, the residential sector, is one which is safe, is one which complies and it is one which has some sort of an overseeing mechanism.

It is a bill which I believe does deserve further scrutiny, certainly on the whole issue of liability, certainly on the issue as to how we can marry or meld the person in the home doing the work with the accredited electrician overseeing the work.

I applaud the member for bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to continued debate on this matter, and I certainly look forward to more debate.

Mr McLean: I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to provide a few comments on private member's Bill 67, An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems, and I congratulate my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.

As we all know, "This bill would prohibit persons from performing work on electrical wiring system unless they hold a certificate of qualification as an electrician or perform the work under the supervision of someone who does hold a certificate," which means they can go ahead and do the work, provided that it is being done under the jurisdiction of somebody who is qualified and holds a certificate.

As well, "Persons who apply to Ontario Hydro for an inspection of work performed on an electrical wiring system would be required to indicate the certificate of qualification number of the person who carried out or supervised the work on the application, and would not be entitled to an inspection unless this was done."

1120

This bill is pure common sense. It is just one more example of the commonsense ideas, proposals and policies that are being generated by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr Mills: What has that got to do with Bill 67?

Mr McLean: I want to make sure the members know it. The commonsense focus of this bill is on safety and economics for the people of this province. It is my understanding that if this bill is passed, and I expect it will be, it will mean the people of this province will be saving electrical inspection and equipment costs by almost one third. That is what I call good economics.

There is no doubt in my mind that all of us in this House should support legislation that will save the people of Ontario money. People are fed up with a government that keeps coming to them for more. When the previous Liberal government ran out of money, it taxed the people, it borrowed, it ran a deficit. Now I am worried that the current NDP government is going to pick up where the Liberals left off.

The taxpayers of Ontario know that taxes are way out of whack with their ability to pay, and that worries them a great deal. We are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction, not just in Canada but in all of North America. This worries people, especially when we are in a time of recession, because it is choking the economy and it is killing jobs. It is feeling demands for even more government spending, and more government spending means only one thing: higher taxes. For every dollar earned in Ontario today people are paying 51 cents in taxes. In other words, the government is getting more of the worker's paycheque than he or she does. Taxpayers, families, students, the sick and the poor and the elderly, all of us are now paying the price for the excess of government.

The Premier's recent decision to effectively allow Ontario's spending and deficit to skyrocket even more, plus hike taxes, is a receipt for disaster.

When we have a bill before us, a commonsense bill that would reduce in some cases up to a third, as I have indicated, of the cost of installing electrical safety and wiring, I think it is important that we do take a look and we should be developing methods for saving them money. That is why I support this bill. It will save money while providing an element of safety. That is why this bill is so important here today.

This bill does not prevent individuals from installing wiring in the new home that they are building with the help of a friend, but it does mean they have to have a number of a qualified electricians. I see no hardship in that. Because of the detriment to society in the fires in the homes we could have, its safety is number one.

This bill is especially important because of the new electrical safety code that came into effect on 4 March 1991. This has made many changes. Indications are there are about 450 changes in the new Electrical Safety Code. So when we look at how it affects residential installations, I think it is important, and this bill is important today to allow this thing to happen.

With regard to installation, "Also at the service panel, there is a new requirement that main switches and panelboards in rooms or areas of combustible construction be mounted such that the back surface is not in contact with or within 50 millimetres (2 inches) through air of a material having a flame spread...." It goes on and gives some of the new criteria, and I think the electricians who are allowing people to do their own wiring should make them fully aware of what these new qualifications are.

It is really a very simple bill. The bill is not long. It just is simple enough that I believe the Minister of Energy would probably see fit to support it and the members of her government I am sure would see fit to support it. I think really it just makes sure that people who are qualified have the jurisdiction over those who are doing their own wiring in their own homes.

Mr B. Murdoch: It's just common sense.

Mr McLean: It is a plain commonsense bill and it is a bill that is going to save the taxpayers some money. There are provisions in the bill that anybody who contravenes is guilty of an offence and will be charged. When we have these types of bills in the Legislature in private members' hour on Thursday mornings, I think the government would do well to listen to some of the points that are put across by the members in the opposition. I think the member for Durham East would be supporting this bill fully with his knowledge of what the taxpayers' cost has been. As an individual who worked for the Ministry of Revenue, I know he would feel that saving the taxpayer money would be one of the main and most important things on his mind.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. I am certainly supporting this bill and urge every member here to do so.

Hon Ms Carter: I do appreciate what the member for Lanark-Renfrew is trying to do with this bill, though I want to qualify his remarks on electricity being such a clean, safe and environmentally friendly fuel. Certainly at the point of use it is, but just how much so depends on how it is generated.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew is trying to save Ontario Hydro and through it consumers some money and also to encourage safety. That is appreciated, and these are some of the points that people have raised about this bill. There is also the question of people who may be out at the cottage and it is difficult to get the Hydro inspector in and so on. All that is well taken. The problem I have is that if this bill were put into practice, the results would not be quite what are being foreseen here. I would like to suggest some of the problems that might arise.

First of all, Canadians are do-it-yourselfers and I think on the whole that is a good characteristic. People like to be independent, they like to feel they know something about practical matters and that they can do things themselves in their homes and their cottages and wherever. I believe at the present time about 50% of electrical work that is done by people on their own is not inspected by Hydro because those people do not notify Hydro, and that, of course, is a problem and a safety hazard.

I am afraid that if this legislation comes in so that all wiring has to be done either by a qualified electrician or under the supervision of one, a few people might say, "All right, we won't do what we would have done before, we'll get somebody in," but others might just say, "This is too much of a nuisance, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway." We are going to increase the proportion of jobs of this kind that are done unsafely, inefficiently and are then not inspected because people who have done this work without supervision are then going to be unable to call on an inspector to come and check it out. This opens up all kinds of dangerous possibilities.

1130

At the present time Ontario Hydro does interact, as was suggested, fairly heavily with people who are doing work on their own. They make sure people have the information they need to do the job right. This takes time. They inspect very carefully, and if they find mistakes, they give instructions for correcting them and then they come back again and reinspect. Of course, it is publicly paid time. It does mean spending ratepayers' dollars, but as I said, there is another side to this issue.

If we do not help people in this way to do these things, what are we going to do? Are we going to put draconian restrictions that tell people they cannot do things in their own homes? How would we even enforce restrictions of that kind? How are we going to prevent innocent people from being unnecessarily endangered by unsafe wiring? The dangers that are inherent in this kind of situation are very drastic dangers, dangers of electrocution, of buildings catching fire and burning and so on. We cannot run the risk of this kind of incident being increased.

This kind of restriction has been introduced in other jurisdictions. It has happened in some provinces that there have been cases of electricians filing papers saying that work was done by them or was supervised by them when this was not the case and they have collected fees from do-it-yourselfers for signing off and allowing their name or number to be used. I am not suggesting this would happen in Ontario. I have trust in the electricians of this province, but it is a disquieting precedent and it is something that should be taken into account when we are thinking about this issue.

Also, there could be some other undesirable spinoffs. The member for Lanark-Renfrew was saying that with things as they are, people buying unsuitable equipment, maybe they are not sufficiently up to date on what is required and they waste their money, and of course that is to be deplored. But if his ideas were implemented, it is possible that we should have to require the removal of all electrical materials from publicly accessible retail outlets. The public would be denied the freedom of buying this equipment, and thus business would be impacted and a significant source of income would be denied to the commercial hardware market. So this financial argument can work two ways round. There would also be a temptation for people to buy equipment of this kind across the border or overseas and bring it back into Ontario, and we do not want to encourage cross-border shopping.

On balance, I feel that this bill should be opposed. I am not issuing any draconian orders to anybody. I do feel it encourages evasion of the law and would, on balance, lead to less safety, not more. I would also like to make it clear that Ontario Hydro itself opposes this initiative. In particular the manager of electrical inspection for Hydro is not in favour of this idea being implemented.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 67, An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems. I know that my good friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew has a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this area. He has worked for Ontario Hydro for I think 39 years. I know him to be very sincere in this initiative and I know he has very vast knowledge in this area.

While I myself have done a considerable deal of research to be prepared to speak on this, I still find it somewhat complex and I am not 100% sure I understand the technical aspects of it, but as my colleague the member for Simcoe East indicated, I feel this is a commonsense principle that we should look at very closely. The member for Mississauga North has also supported it for a number of reasons, and I feel this initiative merits our support and our consideration.

There is a public safety issue involved, as the member for Lanark-Renfrew has indicated, that has to be looked at. If electricity is not handled properly and safely, there is considerable risk. I think if we ensure that electrical equipment installation is done within the supervision of a qualified tradesman, we enhance safety aspects considerably, and I think that we have to look towards that part of the argument.

Simply for an individual to request the trade licence number of a qualified technician to put on the application for inspection I feel does not in any way hinder the individual's efforts to do the work in his own home. I do not think that is hindered at all and I am quite surprised by the minister's suggestion that safety would in fact be minimized and be somewhat less in effect if this bill were to come into law.

The minister indicates there would be more abuses rather than fewer. I am quite surprised at that. I do not feel that is the case. I think that most people do have an understanding that electricity is something you deal with quite carefully and that you would want a Hydro inspector to come in, irrespective of how the work has been done. I certainly do not agree in that respect.

I understand that Ontario Hydro does work co-operatively to attempt to have people very well aware of how the electricity should be handled and how the work should be done within our own homes, but as the member for Lanark-Renfrew has indicated as well as the member for Mississauga North, there have been 450 changes to the code just in the past month or so. I do not know how often those are reviewed but that is a significant number of changes. I think it is very difficult for the Ministry of Energy or Ontario Hydro to attempt to apprise individuals of the changes. I just do not see that as being a point that should sway our opinion on this act. It has not swayed my opinion.

I know this has affected my family recently. My wife's first cousin was very, very seriously burned two weeks ago while he was working in a manhole. It certainly underlines the realization that we have to treat electricity with care, in my own feeling, and I think this bill and this initiative by the member for Lanark-Renfrew does in fact do that.

I indicate that I will be supporting it fully and I hope we receive support from members of all parties. I hope the indication from the Minister of Energy will not bias anyone's opinion as to this. I hope they look at our arguments carefully and closely and consider all points that have been made in this debate before they render their judgement on this bill.

Mr Huget: I would like to thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew for his contribution this morning in bringing forward Bill 67. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I have found that the member is well respected in the ministry for his very constructive role as opposition critic on all energy issues.

Unfortunately, today I must also argue against his bill. While Bill 67 is an effort to find a constructive solution to a genuine concern, it creates more problems than it solves and I must encourage my colleagues in the House to oppose it.

Bill 67 effectively calls for an end to the home handyperson's work on wiring. With the host of do-it-yourself books on the shelves and the long tradition of renovated houses and cottages in the real estate market, it is not hard to see why so many people want to do it themselves when it comes to wiring, the same as when it comes to drywalling, painting and installing carpet.

1140

But there is a difference, and it is an important difference here. Faulty wiring is a serious danger to the public. Because of this danger the province of Ontario has strict regulations on wiring, and requires that the wiring be inspected by professionals from Hydro. Without these inspections, there would be serious risk of mistakes in wiring going undetected until disaster struck. Bill 67 would put an end to all that. Times being what they are and full-time professional help costing what it does, some home handypeople would still choose to do their wiring themselves, but under Bill 67 they could not do it legally and they could not get it inspected. The risks involved in that are, I think, too big for us to take.

I want to raise another issue here. What would it take to enforce Bill 67 if it were passed? I think we need to think very clearly about that. It would be illegal for the ordinary man or woman to do wiring. To make that stick, you would have to take electrical materials off the shelf at regular hardware stores, or you would be inviting illegal activity. The retail hardware trade in this province would take that very hard. Since no electrical supplies would be available off the shelf, even legitimate home do-it-yourself programs and simple maintenance jobs, like changing a light switch or fixing a plug, would be interrupted.

Since other jurisdictions have shown that people still do some of the electrical work despite restrictions of this kind, we could expect people to go out of their way to get materials they need anyway. Where would they get them? In communities like mine they would get them in the United States. Since Bill 67 would have to be followed by measures to restrict their right to buy electrical materials, people would be motivated to engage in cross-border shopping to get what they need.

I do not think I have to go on much longer to convince the House that Bill 67, for its good intentions -- and I admit they are very good intentions -- creates more problems than it solves and is not a bill that should receive second reading in this House.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am glad to stand in support of this bill. What we have just heard was a lot of rhetoric, and I think some people may say hooey. I would like to say that this bill does not do all those things we just heard about. It does allow the homeowner to do his own work. All he has to do is get a number. If some people would read the bill and understand it, we would not have all this rhetoric and trying to persuade people that the bill is not a good one.

I think that if some of these people would go to some fires that have happened in rural areas where some people have done their own wiring, and if they had to go as some of the volunteer firemen have to do and fight these fires that electrical mistakes have caused, then they would understand this whole bill. It just shows that if you do not read the whole bill, you do not understand it. I think this is what has happened.

I would just like to say that I support this bill wholly, and hope that the people here can use common sense for a change, which has been lacking in this House for the last few years. So hopefully members can see that and vote for this bill.

Mrs Haslam: I did have a house fire. It was not from electrical wiring, but --

Mr Owens: It was the plumbing.

Mrs Haslam: Yes, plumbing. I know how bad a house fire can be, Bill, and I am sorry --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the chair.

Mrs Haslam: I know how difficult a house fire can be, and I do take the member's remarks to heart. However, I agree with the previous two speakers on this side that there are some problems with this particular bill. One of the things I have a problem with is people who do minor repairs. If I want to put a dimmer switch in, then I put a dimmer switch in. This will alleviate even -- it goes into a minor --

Mr Carr: Can you come to my house? I need one of them.

Mrs Haslam: The member needs one of those?

Mr Villeneuve: Some of us don't.

Mrs Haslam: I am being provoked, Mr Speaker.

I believe that the bill will promote and not reduce illegal activity, and this has been said before, because when you now make it illegal for any type of work to be done, you are getting that person who does that little bit of work in his house -- it is totally illegal now. I feel that a lot of times it is easier for him to get an electrician to come in to do a little bit of work and have it inspected, but when you require him to have an electrician come in and do all of it, he is going to do it himself, and then he is not going to get it inspected. I think that there is a basic problem in this.

It has been unsuccessful in other jurisdictions, and I believe that the minister has mentioned that, and I believe the minister has mentioned the spinoffs. I think that there are just too many "ifs" and too many "ands" in this particular legislation that we have to deal with. I do not support this legislation at all. I am sorry that this legislation has come forward and I am unable to support it. You talk about expenses, and I feel that the expenses are going to end up in the consumer's pocket and the problems are going to end up back on the consumer. I do not think the savings are going to be there at all.

Hydro is not in favour of it. They believe that the bill would reduce the safety of electrical installations in dwelling units. People who now have access to electrical parts and products at hardware stores will not have access to these materials. I think there are just too many "ifs," "ands" or "buts" on the part of the consumer and I am afraid I just cannot support this particular bill.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure for me to stand here this morning and talk to my colleague and friend's bill, the member for Lanark-Renfrew. I look on Thursday mornings here as a joyful time that we can debate each other's bills and we can say what we mean without any fear of any --

Mr Villeneuve: Is that the only time you do it, Gordon?

Mr Mills: It is not the only time, but I am running out of time. What I would like to say is that my friend and colleague the member for Peterborough is here this morning as a private member. She is not here to put any hex on me to make me vote against my colleague's bill. She is here as she felt to be part of this caucus, and I take very great exception to the member for Oriole who suggested that she would be here to put the stick over us. That is wrong. Having cleared that, I will speak to my friend's bill here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When you address the member, do not call him by his first name. Refer to him by his riding.

Mr Owens: He said "the bill."

Mrs Haslam: His first name is Leo, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: You understand what I meant.

Mr Mills: Yes, but I meant "the bill," not "the Bill." My time has almost run out, and I must say that I respect the member for Lanark-Renfrew. I admire him for coming here. Nevertheless, there are some things that I am not comfortable with and, alas, I cannot support it.

Mr Jordan: I want to thank all of the members here today who not only supported the bill but who have spoken against the bill. I regret the fact that the bill has been completely misunderstood. The Minister of Energy's report that Ontario Hydro is against it is not factual, from my information. I am sorry. I just talked with the manager of the Ontario Electrical League and he sees it as a major first step in introducing safety into wiring in Ontario.

These statements by my colleagues on the government side stating that people would be cut off from access to buy material is not a fact. People may buy their material wherever they like. The only things involved in this bill are safety and economics.

The safety part is, who is going to do the skills training? Is it going to be paid by you and me on our Hydro bill through the inspector, to train the individual who takes out the permit and has no training? The other thing is, are we going to use them as a skills development or are we going to let a professional tradesman assist them in giving information? He does not have to interfere with the individual's right to wire his own garage or cottage or whatever.

1150

The saving back to Ontario Hydro, from the information available to me, could be as much as a third of the time that the inspector uses from May to October on inspection calls. Members can imagine when someone phones in to the inspection office, an individual from Ottawa, for instance, at a cottage out on the Rideau: First of all, he does not know his lot and concession, he does not know where he lives, and all of this is time that we pay that could be looked after by someone in the trade who would not only know the area but would know the profession.

I am sorry the Minister of Energy cannot see that the safety is here. The difference is that training will be by a professional tradesman rather than at our expense through an electrical inspector from Ontario Hydro. It is not only the inspector's time on the job at over $50 an hour. It is the administration time in the office and the bad public relations that are created when the inspection clerk has to convey the message to the property owner that the work is not acceptable, that the material is not acceptable.

These are the points that were missing in this simple bill this morning. I am really upset to have a report that Ontario Hydro is not in favour and that they would have to take the equipment off the shelves of hardware stores. There is no attachment to that whatsoever. People are free to buy the equipment across the border, anyplace they like. All we are asking is that you have a professional trades licence number on your application so we have someone to communicate with in a learned way as to the proper installation of that equipment.

Really, I believe that the members, given a chance to reread the bill and assess it -- I would like to see them consider the bill through the resources development committee for more consultation.

1200

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE PROJET D'AIDE FINANCIERE AUX INTERVENANTS

The House divided on Mr Chiarelli's motion for second reading of Bill 39, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Chiarelli pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 39, mise aux voix, est rejetée:

Ayes/Pour-24

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Curling, Elston, Fletcher, Frankford, Harnick, Haslam, Mammoliti, Mancini, Mathyssen, McGuinty, O'Neill, Y., Offer, Scott, Silipo, Sorbara, Ward, B., Waters, Wiseman.

Nays/Contre-40

Abel, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Martin, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Witmer, Wood.

1205

ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS ÉLECIRIQUES

The House divided on Mr Jordan's motion for second reading of Bill 67, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Jordan pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 67, mise aux voix, est rejetée:

Ayes/Pour-18

Arnott, Brown, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Cunningham, Harnick, Jordan, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Sterling, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays/Contre-46

Abel, Bradley, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Scott, Silipo, Sorbara, Sutherland, Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1209.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: As all members of this House are aware, the NDP has unilaterally abolished the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers and police commissioners. The Premier has also indicated that the government is examining whether to expand the abolition to include public servants and firefighters.

The NDP took this misguided action without giving either the people of Ontario or the members of this House the opportunity to debate the matter. Instead, the new oath was secretly approved by cabinet and slipped into regulations without warning.

If the government is so proud of its decision to change the oath, why did it not tell everyone? The Premier claims the elimination of the oath to the Queen does not affect the monarchy's role in our affairs. Tell that to the people who are outraged by the government's decision. The Premier says he has not received many negative calls to his office on this issue. I urge people who support the monarchy to call or write the Premier's office and express their disapproval.

At this sensitive and important time in Canadian history, the Premier has chosen to damage a lasting and valuable symbol of Canada's heritage instead of enhancing this symbol. The NDP is tarnishing an institution which plays a valuable role in fostering Canadian unity.

I call on the Premier to acknowledge his mistake and reinstate the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. At the very least, the implementation of the new oath should be delayed until the members of this House and the people of this province have been given the opportunity to debate the issue fully and openly.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr Carr: Halton Women's Shelter is the only shelter in Halton region for the abused women and their children. This one shelter is located in the town of Milton in the north of the region, and it provides a temporary home for up to 18 women at a time. The home is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Counselling is offered to the women and their children. Women also receive assistance in health and life skills, and a community worker is available to accompany the woman to court if required.

While these services have proven to be essential to many abused women and their children in the region, the northern location virtually restricts access to the 25% of those who live in the Milton or Halton Hills area. The remaining 75% live in Burlington and Oakville, where there is no shelter for abused women. The lack of public transportation between the north and the south presents a major barrier to the women in the south who do not have their own means of transportation.

Many surveys and studies have been done which have identified the urgent need for a shelter for abused women in the southern area of Halton. I sincerely hope the ministers of both women's issues and Community and Social Services will recognize this need. I urge them to ensure we in Oakville and Burlington receive a shelter.

ST CATHARINES STANDARD

Ms Haeck: I rise today to salute the St Catharines Standard on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of its founding. On 21 April 1891, two Torontonians founded the Standard in a city that already had three other daily newspapers. After less than a year, the founders faced bankruptcy. In early 1892 their print shop foreman, William Burgoyne, stepped in to purchase the paper for the sum of $1.

Today, under the direction of publisher Harry Burgoyne, great-grandson of the founder, the Standard has 300 employees and has for many decades been the only daily newspaper in St Catharines.

Under managing editor Murray Thomson the newspaper regularly wins prizes for its local and regional reporting. It is notable also for being one of only four family-owned newspapers left in all of Ontario.

The Standard is also the cornerstone of a publishing enterprise that includes at least six weeklies in Niagara and other daily papers as far away as Cobourg and Port Hope. The Standard even publishes the Canada News, well known to vacationers in Florida.

I salute the St Catharines Standard. Although the Standard and I occasionally do not see eye to eye on politics, I am glad to recognize its considerable contributions to shaping the St Catharines that we know today. Happy birthday to the Standard.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Cleary: I rise today in the House to implore the government to take action on the issue of cross-border shopping, which has become a public safety crisis in the Cornwall area. It is estimated that cross-border shopping may cost Cornwall more than $12 million in sales, representing a loss of 120 jobs.

Cross-border shopping has become so severe that traffic jams are occurring along the Seaway International Bridge and along local roads serving the bridge. Two-hour waits at the bridge are not uncommon. The Mohawk Grand Chief Mike Mitchell has raised concerns that reserve residents may be in danger if the traffic congestion along the bridge area continues to cut off the emergency vehicle access to the reserve. In his comments on the issue Chief Mitchell also reiterated the well-known fact that low US prices, especially for gasoline and cigarettes, are luring Canadians across the border and clogging access to the reserve.

The Mohawk police of Akwesasne have threatened to block the Seaway International Bridge in my riding this Saturday because of their concerns for public safety. Federal officials met with the Mohawk council to try to resolve this safety issue.

I would urge the Premier of this province to respond quickly to this escalating problem. With the impending blockade of the Seaway bridge, the government should take immediate action to make Ontario business competitive and to encourage people in border communities to spend their Canadian dollars in Canada.

FLOODING

Mr McLean: This past week a number of communities and townships on the Burnt and Irondale rivers were devastated by severe flooding. Areas which were hit particularly hard include the townships of Somerville, Dysart, Glamorgan and Snowdon.

Is this government prepared to assist in any way possible the home owners, cottage owners and businesses in this region as they attempt to recover from this disaster? Water levels have gone as high as the first storey of many buildings, leaving basements damaged. Local roads have been washed out and drainage systems severely damaged.

Will the Ministry of the Environment be prepared to assess the environmental damage the overflow of these rivers has caused? The people of the region eagerly await the government's answers.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: The Minister of Natural Resources has been making a lot of noise about the approximate $1.5-million shortfall in angling licence money that has not been returned to fisheries' budgets.

The minister whines about the former Liberal government placing licence fee revenues in general revenues. He knows that once they end up in general revenues, they are gone for ever.

I would suggest the minister stop whining and bring forward legislation that would create a special fish and wildlife fund based on the revenues generated by all fishing and hunting licensing fees. If this was done, then maybe he would not have to close three fish hatcheries and slash the budget for the policing of poaching.

PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

Mrs MacKinnon: This year is the 75th anniversary of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. The federation has designated next week as Home and School Week. I rise today to congratulate parents' associations on their valuable contributions to our province's educational system.

The three umbrella parents' associations are the Federation of Francophone Parents' Associations of Ontario, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario, and the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. These associations represent about 1,000 local home and school associations across the province.

As a former school trustee, I encourage more parents to become involved in their children's education and I also encourage schools in welcoming and responding to parental input.

Once again, congratulations to the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations and to all the parents who have or are currently helping us meet the goals of education excellence.

1340

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: Child care in Ontario is at a significant crossroads. The goal of affordable, accessible, quality child care, developed to ensure full parental choice and involvement, has been compromised by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister in her policy statement of 31 January has demonstrated that she is not able to manage the child care system in Ontario in a way that reflects both need and reality. The minister provided salary dollars to the nonprofit sector only. She has forgotten that 34% of the province's parents are choosing child care programs offered in commercial centres and has placed these centres at a disadvantage in attracting and maintaining qualified, capable staff and even in remaining open.

The minister has failed to manage exploding welfare case loads and has forced municipalities into a position where they have to scramble to meet their social assistance obligations and cannot afford child care subsidies. Peel region, where welfare case loads have grown by 90%, has notified the ministry that it is not in a position to take advantage of an additional 243 subsidized spaces. The minister's subsidy announcement has come too late in the budget-year process for some municipalities to take advantage of it.

I look for a sense of priority in child care and find none. There appear to be no goals for the long-term planning and expansion of the system. There is no attempt to maintain the viability of the current system to ensure that parents and children have access to the spaces they need. Child care is a necessity. It must be responded to.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: I call the attention of all members to the crisis of accountability currently affecting our provincial welfare system under the NDP.

The story of the burgeoning social assistance load in this province is well known. It has increased by 65% over the same amount reported last year. The Daily Bread Food Bank in Metro Toronto reports that it now assists over 120,000 people on a monthly basis. Over 300,000 children in Ontario are now living below the poverty line.

Clearly the number of those who suffer from genuine need in Ontario is greatest today. Therefore, we must address the problem of those on welfare rolls who either do not need to be or who maliciously take advantage of already strained welfare budgets to rob benefits from others who urgently require them.

This question is one of government accountability for our social assistance program. This was openly discussed by journalist Diane Francis, who was irresponsibly maligned by this government for making public her investigations into proposed NDP welfare changes and documented cases of its abuse.

This will be a costly political lesson that this government will have to learn, but unfortunately at taxpayers' expense. I call on the NDP to recognize that accountability is the best way to ensure that those most in need of assistance will receive it.

Accountability means different things to different politicians. For the NDP, success of social support is measured by the number of people being added to the welfare rolls. For the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, its success is measured by the number of people who no longer require social assistance.

FLOODING

Mr Drainville: The residents of communities bordering the Burnt River in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton have endured the destructive force of spring floods. Fortunately, due to the hard work of the emergency crews, there has been no loss of human life.

Since the flooding began last week, I have travelled through seven different communities gathering information on the problems that are facing my constituents. One thing is clear from these discussions, that the assistance of many groups from the municipal and provincial governments has been substantial and effective.

I would like to draw the attention of this assembly to some of the emergency crew members who have helped so many people in their time of need: from the township of Somerville, Reeve Bryce Young, Deputy Reeve Sue Douglas, Councillor John Austin, Clerk-Treasurer Tammy McKelvey and the staff in this small township; from the OPP at Coboconk who evacuated four families, Staff Sergeant Peter Alexander, Sergeant Patrick Dunn and constables Frank Sokol, Paul Bradley and Dave Fletcher. Fenelon firefighters Fred Elder and John Williamson were assisted by two OPP sergeants in rescuing two cottagers who spent a night on a cold and wet knoll.

I would also like to commend the work of the Ministry of Natural Resources that has done fine work throughout this difficulty. I would also like to say that the provincial government has responded directly and immediately to the needs of the people and they deserve to be given due accord at this time as well.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

The Speaker: Yesterday the member for Simcoe West rose on a question of privilege with respect to the changes in the oath of allegiance required to be sworn by members of police forces in the province. I have had an opportunity to review the member's submission and the relevant parliamentary authorities.

It may be useful to stress the very nature of parliamentary privilege. Standing order 21(a) defines privilege as "the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Australia House of Representatives' Practice notes that "parliamentary privilege relates to the special rights and immunities which belong to the Parliament, its members and others, which are considered essential for the operation of the Parliament. These rights and immunities allow the Parliament to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role, for members to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents and for others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities without obstruction or fear of prosecution."

These special rights and immunities of the House and its members include the right of free speech in Parliament, immunity from arrest or detention for civil causes during defined periods, immunity of members from the obligation to serve on juries, immunity of witnesses from being questioned or impeached for evidence given before the House or its committees, the right of the House to establish its own rules and enforce them, the power to expel members and the power to order the arrest and imprisonment of persons guilty of contempt or breach of privilege. It is only in very restricted circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real, accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege.

It is my opinion that the circumstances raised by the member for Simcoe West do not fall within the definition of privilege I have cited. There is no indication that the House and its members have been impeded in the performance of their duties as a result of the changes in the oath of allegiance required to be sworn by members of Ontario's police forces. Accordingly, I must rule that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established which would permit the matter to take precedence over the other business of the House.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Speaker: Further, before beginning oral questions, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I consider some of the concerns that have been raised with me and others regarding the conduct of question period. In recent weeks, I have been keeping track of the time used by questioners and those providing responses during this very important part of our proceedings. The figures make it clear that both the questions and the responses are becoming longer and therefore fewer members get to ask a question.

Our standing orders set out very rigidly how our question period is to be run, and very little discretion, if any, is left to the Speaker in that sense. Furthermore, our question period is a full 60 minutes long, which should provide the necessary time for many members to ask their questions.

The point I want to make is that the Chair will undertake to use persuasion upon members who are taking too long to ask or to answer a question, but I would also ask that the members themselves do their part to assist the Chair by making their questions and supplementaries as short and to the point as possible, and that the ministers do the same in providing their responses.

With the time provided and with co-operation, there should be no problem in dealing with 12 to 13 or more questions every day. Actually, until recently, that was the average number of questions we were achieving. Hopefully, we can go beyond that number.

If the House leaders or any other member of the assembly wishes to meet with me regarding this matter, I would be most pleased to do so. This is your question period and I am certain that by working together we can make it useful and productive.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Hon Ms Ziemba: Later today I will introduce legislation regarding advocacy for vulnerable adults. My hope is that the bill will be referred to committee for further comment, particularly by consumers.

Society is judged, in part, on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Historically, many vulnerable adults have been victims of abuse and exploitation. They have often been silenced and deprived of the opportunity to exercise their fundamental rights. Such rights include the right to make choices, the right to participate in shaping one's own future and the future of the community, and above all, the right to speak out for change.

The Advocacy Act is the centrepiece of a legislative package to address this injustice. The companion acts, the Health Services Consent Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, will be introduced later by my colleagues the Minister of Health and the Attorney General.

In its simplest form, advocacy provides a voice for those who may have difficulty in expressing themselves because of a disability, whatever its nature, and who do not have the support of family and friends to assist them in doing so. This legislation is about empowerment, choice and dignity. Advocates will ensure that vulnerable adults have the power to make decisions and exercise their right of choice. For this reason, advocates will be responsible to their clients, within the limits of the law, and while they will provide information and perhaps make recommendations, they will abide by the wishes of their clients.

The advocacy program will be sensitive to the traditions and heritage of Ontario's aboriginal peoples and their right to provide their own advocacy services. It will also take into account the culture, traditions and religion of vulnerable persons in this province.

In order to ensure that advocates can carry out their work, they will be given the right to enter both public and, under certain conditions, private premises, and to visit privately with clients. Advocates will, with the consent of the vulnerable persons, also have access to individual records held by facilities.

In the course of their work, we expect that advocates will encounter circumstances in which the safety, comfort or wellbeing of vulnerable people is being compromised. If the advocates' inquiries reveal widespread or chronic abuse, neglect or ineffectiveness in such situations, then changes will have to be made. This may involve systemic changes, including new laws, practices and policies in both the public and private sectors. We are fully prepared to see that happen.

Our next step will be to set up an Advocacy Commission which will operate at arm's length from government. In keeping with our commitment to community involvement, we will form a broadly based advisory committee representative of the disabled and senior citizens' communities. This advisory committee will nominate candidates to serve on the commission. The commission will also be representative of the communities it serves.

Once the commission has been set up, it will develop standards and training programs for the advocates themselves. Some advocates will work directly for the commission, while others will be employees or volunteers of non-profit, community-based organizations.

In developing this act, we have relied on the help and advice of many people who have worked long and very hard for this day. I would be remiss if I did not say thank you and congratulations to representatives of the Ontario Advocacy Coalition, and especially to three special advisers: Judith Wahl, David Baker and David Giuffrida.

I am pleased to place this legislation before the House and to set in motion a new era of empowerment for vulnerable adults. I believe that ultimately it will give voice to those who have been silenced and forgotten for too long.

FORESTRY AUDIT

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce today details of an independent audit that will examine the area of the boreal forest of northern Ontario that has been harvested. This is the first audit of its kind in Canada.

The main purpose of the audit will be to determine the success or failure of artificial and natural regeneration on previously harvested areas of the boreal forest. Regeneration on both crown management units and areas covered by forest management agreements will be studied.

For many years, industry and government have measured and portrayed their performance in regeneration in terms of dollars spent, hectares planted and so on. There has been far too little attention paid to the results of these efforts. The examination of the current state of natural and artificial regeneration on cutover areas of the boreal forest will provide new information on this one aspect of the forest ecosystem. This audit is an essential component in a sustainable forestry strategy. It will provide a crucial starting point and a guide for future investment in Ontario's forests.

There will be a public consultation process to finalize the terms of reference for the audit and also to review the findings. The information from the audit will be made available to the public in a clear and concise manner.

Successful regeneration is vital to the long-term health of our forest, forest industries and communities dependent on forests. However, to date, regeneration efforts have not kept pace with harvesting. Despite increased investment in forest renewal, there is a gap between the area we cut and the area of forest we renew each year. Last year this regeneration gap was about 20,000 hectares.

In the speech from the throne, this government said it is determined to see that our forests are regenerated. The independent audit is an important first step in meeting that commitment. The audit will provide a benchmark on the status of regeneration of the boreal forest that will assist us in developing our agenda for a sustainable forestry. Using this benchmark, the public will be able to measure the success of future timber management activities in the boreal forest.

The independent audit will be conducted by a three-person committee. The chair will be Kenneth Hearnden, who recently retired as professor emeritus after 15 years at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. Mr Hearnden was a professor of forestry and dean of students at Lakehead. He also spent 21 years at Abitibi Paper Co in Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay.

One of the vice-chairs will be Susan Millson, who operates Millson Forestry Service, a company that produces tree seedlings in Timmins. Mrs Millson's company also provides silvicultural, research and planning services. She is a graduate of the forestry program at Lakehead University.

The other vice-chair is Chief Willy Wilson, chief of the Rainy River Band. Chief Wilson is also the chair of the Indian forestry development program and the chair of the board of directors of the National Aboriginal Forestry Foundation. The independent audit committee is here with us in the gallery opposite. Unfortunately, Chief Wilson was unable to be with us here this afternoon.

I am convinced that the people of Ontario want to see better forest management. They also want to participate in the decisions we make in managing our forests. The audit will provide the public, the forest industry and the ministry with more of the information needed to improve forest management and to participate fully in it. I am looking forward to it.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Hon Ms Churley: It is my pleasure to inform members of the House that the week of 22 to 28 April 1991 will be National Consumer Week in Ontario.

In proclaiming National Consumer Week, I am pleased to recognize the role of all who encourage and promote consumer education and awareness. I applaud their efforts, be it as community volunteers or as professional consumer educators in the school system, business or government.

National Consumer Week is an opportunity for every province and municipality to help educate Canadian consumers. My congratulations to municipalities that have issued proclamations in honour of National Consumer Week. These communities include Keewatin and Fort Frances in the northwest, Gananoque, Renfrew and Hawkesbury in eastern Ontario and Windsor and St Thomas in the south as well as Lindsay, Orillia, Midland, Owen Sound, Cobourg, Scarborough, Kitchener and St Catharines.

At this time there are some people I would like to single out. They represent the kinds of individuals and organizations that are making real contributions to marketplace partnership. I draw members' attention to the public gallery. Joining us is Joan Huzar, president of the Ontario wing of the Consumers' Association of Canada. I cannot see her any more. There she is.

1400

As well, I would like to introduce the recipients of the third annual Consumer Education Awards of Excellence. These awards are in recognition of outstanding individual contributions to consumer education and awareness in both the professional and volunteer categories. Barbara Beck of Peterborough is the volunteer consumer education award recipient for her volunteer work with the Consumers' Association of Canada. Linda Routledge of Toronto received the professional consumer education award for her work with the Canadian Bankers' Association.

I would like members to join me at 4 pm, following question period, in caucus room 230 to meet these individuals and representatives of a number of other organizations and groups who have played an important role in helping plan National Consumer Week. By working together, our marketplace will continue to grow and thrive.

BUDGET

Hon Mr Laughren: I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1991 Ontario budget to the House on Monday 29 April at 4 pm.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am rising on a point of order concerning the use by the government of the time that is available for ministers' statements. From time to time, members on this side have risen in their seats and raised objections about statements that were made that were insignificant and really were not new policy. Today and yesterday we had events occurring in this province concerning Standard Trustco which are so significant --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please? I think the member knows full well that it is not a point of order with respect to our standing orders and statements by ministers. I do appreciate your interest and concern.

Mr Chiarelli: Can I ask for unanimous consent on a point of order?

The Speaker: You can try. What is the request?

Mr Chiarelli: The unanimous consent that I am asking for is unanimous consent for this House to permit the Minister of Financial Institutions to make a statement concerning Standard Trustco when we have a major Canadian trust company closing its branches across this province.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: I believe the minister should be standing in his place making a report when he was fully --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please? I heard at least one negative voice.

RESPONSES

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Mahoney: I would like to respond to the Minister of Citizenship and just say that part of our concern in this party is this: We have five critic areas and there are lots of people who would like to respond to this statement, but because of the workload the Premier has shifted on to this minister, we are going to have to keep our comments within the time frame. With two other ministries making announcements, it makes it extremely difficult for us as an opposition party to do justice to these ministers' statements. Some days we get no announcements. Today they come in with three.

I would like to say to the minister that we do --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Make up your mind, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: Well, give us some time to respond to the issues is the point, to the Premier.

I would like to say that the advocates issue is very important. I would hope that the minister would take into account the rights of families to deal with this issue and not create some bureaucracy that would take away a family's rights to deal with its own family members, that the bureaucracy would not get run away with costs and red tape that are totally out of order and that we recognize the rights of the family members.

I would like to suggest that this minister made this announcement last December and today has just regurgitated the same announcement. She could have come in with the commission today. She could have done something. Instead she is just rehashing old information.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Mr Mahoney: Just to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I was very interested to see that the minister has sharpened her political teeth on the rather thorny issue of declaring and announcing National Consumer Week. I congratulate her for that. I am delighted to see the members of the public in the gallery who are working on this very important issue, but I wonder why the minister did not take off the shelf the new consumer protection code that is sitting there waiting to be introduced in this House.

FORESTRY AUDIT

Mr Ramsay: We welcome the Minister of Natural Resources' announcement today on the forestry audit. I sort of look at it as building on the initiatives of the Baskerville report. As the government party said at the time, Baskerville did not count the trees specifically, and we welcome this second step now. I think Mr Baskerville started this initiative off in looking at some of the substantive issues.

I would like to say that it looks like this audit is maybe only dealing with the second growth. I would remind the minister that we have to be also looking at the old-growth forest in the province and would ask him to continue with those efforts.

The trouble with that second growth, and I think what the minister is going to find, is that after the widespread mechanical harvesting we had since the 1940s, and because we did not have sufficient regeneration until about the 1980s, we have what George Marek, a well-known authority of the forest, calls the junk forest out there, and that certainly needs to be looked at. As the minister knows and is nodding, the junk forest is comprised of a composition of balsam fir and poplar, not the best commercial-value type of wood that is out there. That really has to be looked at to see if we can improve our silviculture methods.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Curling: I too would like to respond to the Minister of Citizenship to tell her that this is an extremely important act. In the meantime, as we said, the advocacy provides a voice for those who may have difficulty in expressing themselves that, when we do appoint these people, is extremely important.

I am not very impressed with our way of going about appointing people in the last couple of months. I hope that these people who will be speaking on behalf of the other people are well-researched, well-thought-out people who understand the issues and not political appointments, not people blessed by the Premier who feel that because the Premier has blessed them then the committee must follow through and appoint them.

I am not at all impressed at the fact that when we go out in the community, there are many, many people out there who would like to serve on these boards and these commissions. I will again touch on the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission, even within itself needs to be looked at with respect to morale, because as soon as we form these organizations, they are fighting within themselves and the cause is not being served properly.

We of course hope that we have got this before so that we can make sure that we have input. The minister still has time in which she can consult with us, and we will make sure that we have a good Advocacy Act.

Mrs Marland: We are pleased today with the minister's announcement. Certainly our party has long supported an independent advocacy system. This minister's introduction today of the Advocacy Act is an important first step. We look forward as well to the introduction of the companion acts, the Health Services Consent Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, in the very near future.

We also look forward to reviewing the legislation in detail and we hope that the government will in fact invite all the relevant interest groups to make comments and give opinions on this legislation.

I do have to make one comment of a negative natura, however. I would feel a little more comfort, I guess is the word, if this minister did not wait for this Advocacy Commission that she is talking about to address some of the needs that we know are already identified for vulnerable adults.

I bear reference to my question at the beginning of this week where I asked her about the safety of blind people in public transit situations. I was referring to the death last year of Rebecca Noble, who actually was a civil servant and died in one of our subway stations in Toronto. It was very discouraging for everyone who is an advocate today, without this legislation, for people with disabilities that the minister responsible for disability issues did not choose to answer my question, even if she did not have the answer. She referred it to the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of Education continues to discriminate against Wally Elgersma, who is attending a Christian school and does not have access to a health care program that would be acceptable to him if he were in another school system. The member for Burlington South has addressed that concern with the Minister of Education.

I simply say we do need the Advocacy Act, but there are other actions that this government should be taking today. They know of situations today that exist that need their attention and need the remedy, and the remedy itself exists.

1410

FORESTRY AUDIT

Mr McLean: We welcome the Minister of Natural Resources' statement outlining his intentions on the auditing and management of the boreal forests of northern Ontario. As the minister may recall, I made a statement in this Legislature on 3 December last year calling for the appointment of independent auditors to deal with the public perception that our forests are being mismanaged. The Ontario Forest Industries Association has been calling for this measure for some time to level the playing field and ensure the industry's compliance with regulatory practices.

We are pleased to see the minister address the very real public concerns about our present forest regulations, which emphasize the extraction of wood fibre over wildlife concerns. We also hope that the public consultation process outlined in the minister's statement leads to greater participation among environmentalists, the forestry industry and all others in this province involved with the valuable resources.

In summary, we welcome this announcement as a positive sign for the future management and conservation of our important forests.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Although all members in this House share a commitment to improving consumer protection in this province, we do not share, however, common beliefs with respect to how consumers are being protected by this government.

I wish to draw to this minister's attention that she is now a member of a cabinet that has severely inhibited and severely damaged the rights of fee-paying parents who have put their children in day cares in this province, because she has discriminated against those consumers of that service by her policies, which specifically limit access to commercial day care.

I would also like to say that as the minister responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board, she has sat by silently while people are consuming offensive and explicit X-rated videos in this province.

The fact that the cabinet has her hands tied would indicate to us that perhaps she should spend some more time talking to her policy and legal departments within her ministry and perhaps spend a little less time with her public relations department, which is what we have received today.

MEMBERS' MAILINGS

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: If I might, I wish to forward to you another indication that the rules of the Legislative Assembly again are being broken by people sending out political information with respect to taxpayers' dollars.

Quite clearly the NDP logo is being displayed on the material being sent out by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, and although I know you have sent a letter to me about the member for Downsview, a point of privilege about whose mailout I raised earlier, you said it was not clear that party identification was a breach.

I can quite honestly tell you, Mr Speaker, that I find that very unusual, since it has always been a tradition here that nobody should identify himself with a partisan organization once he has been elected here, because our duties as members in the Legislative Assembly and our activities as a result of our membership here have been funded by the taxpayers. We have quite clearly, for the longest time -- I have only been here for 10 years, but even longer than that -- indicated to any member who violated it that it was a violation and that it should cease and stop.

In fact, Mr Speaker, you now have said that you are going to refer this matter out to the Legislative Assembly committee for another ruling. It is quite clear that the members who are assigned to that committee are in favour of the New Democratic Party and it becomes clear to me that they are going to change the rules and allow this sort of partisan identification.

For me, that is not acceptable. We should have no change in the tradition of this place. There should be no indication of partisan membership, because the members, once here, speak on behalf of all their constituents, and to mail this stuff out in a shameful demonstration of electoral superiority, at least temporarily, is not to be countenanced.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that those traditions are enforced, because it has been clear and is clear that, unless the rules are changed, this is not to occur, but it occurs daily and it occurs, in my view, as a very demonstrated, co-ordinated activity by the New Democratic Party to breach what have been the traditional rules of the funding of the members' activities -- the members' activities, not the parties' activities.

Hon Miss Martel: I find it passing strange that the House leader for the official opposition would raise the matter here. He knows, as does the leader for the third party, that we have all been invited to come before the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly next Wednesday to take a look at this matter that was raised with respect to the member for Downsview, and this particular item which he has raised here today. If he wants to bring his comments and concerns there, I suggest that is the place to bring it and we will try to deal with it there.

The Speaker: I realize that all of us have an interest in each other's riding reports. I appreciate the point raised by the member for Bruce and as well the point raised by the government House leader. I have, as you know, reviewed this matter previously. I have asked that the Legislative Assembly committee take a look at it. If indeed the committee finds I am in error in my reading of the administrative manual, then I would be more than happy to correct whatever error I have committed. But I think, quite properly, the Legislative Assembly committee is seized of this matter and I trust it will deal with it as expeditiously as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SALARIES

Mr Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I think the minister will know that the hospitals across the province are wrestling, as we speak, with a very tough budget issue, and that is how they maintain their level of service and meet the obligations under the new contract with the Ontario Nurses' Association. I would remind the minister and the House that in December, I think, she said it was her intention and the intention of the government to ensure they supported the hospitals in their efforts to work out their relations with their nurses. Can the minister confirm to the House that it is still her intention to fund hospitals to meet the financial obligations that were established by the recent ONA contract?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Liberal critic on the matter of Health knows that the ONA contract was negotiated between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses' Association. It is a contract, obviously, that represented what the Ontario Hospital Association felt it could pay in light of the transfer announcements that we had made as a government to the hospitals of Ontario.

Those transfers were at the level of 9.5%. They were the highest of all the transfer payments that were announced by this government for this fiscal year, and the Ontario Hospital Association and its members understood that was it in terms of our transfer payments to the hospitals for this year.

1420

Mr Phillips: If I might pursue this, because I think it is going to become an increasing issue with the government, I think the minister knows that nurses' salaries consume the largest single part of a hospital budget. I think the minister knows as well that the contract with the ONA is about a 12% increase in the nurses' budget in hospitals. It is the largest single budget item, and it goes up 12%.

The minister says it is a 9.5% increase. In fact, the memo from the deputy minister to hospitals on 8 April said that for 1991-92 basic provincial support grants to hospitals, to meet higher operating costs, will be increased by 6%. The largest single part of the budget is nurses' salaries. It is going up at least 12%, and the hospital grants will be going up 6%.

With that in mind, Mr Speaker -- are you going to cut me off now? I will move as quickly as I can.

With that in mind, I was not surprised, although I was disturbed, to read yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen and to hear from our Ottawa members about the situation at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, which laid off I think 25 individuals, indicating it was a result of the settlement.

Is it acceptable to the minister that hospitals are being forced to cut jobs as a method of managing the nurses' wage settlement and that the jobs that are being sacrificed are nursing jobs? What commitment will the minister make to the nurses and the hospitals around Ontario, and particularly right now CHEO, that the wage settlement will not require ward closings and hospital bed closings?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Liberal critic for Health understands that the 9.5% transfer payments which were announced by this government to the hospitals of Ontario include a base 6% for the year-over-year cost increases of the hospital, plus other special funding arrangements which are made depending on equity payments among hospitals, growth funding and funding for special programs; a variety of special funding arrangements.

In the particular case of a hospital such as CHEO, the hospital then looks at the funding that is available through the transfer arrangements and decides how it can allocate its own budget and determine the best way and the most effective way of providing services to the community. In the case of CHEO, it has decided to increase its ambulatory patient services, its outpatient care, and it has announced that there will be some layoff of staff. They expect that some of those personnel changes will be incorporated within their own personnel rearrangements within the hospital.

I am hopeful that they will be able to continue to provide the high level of care they have in the past in our community, and I know the Ministry of Health will co-operate with them as they seek to become more efficient and more effective in their provision of service.

Mr Phillips: I honestly do not think it is going to wash. I think the people in the health care area have watched the minister's party in opposition and are aware of the statements the Premier, for example, has made in opposition. It is a fact that the majority of the hospitals are receiving 6% and that the nurses' settlement will cost at least 12%, so they are going to have a major financial challenge.

Many of them go back to the statement that the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, said on 15 February, I think; this was regarding disputes between the hospitals and the nurses, settlements between the hospitals and nurses, the working relationship. He said, "If it is not working well enough, then, as the government" -- he is referring, of course, to the previous government -- "which is the paykeeper, as the government, which is in fact responsible for paying nurses' salaries, that government ought to be there saying to the hospital association and the nurses' association: 'This just isn't working well enough. We want you two to get together and find a solution'" -- this is the important part -- "'and we are prepared to be the funders of the decisions that you arrive at.'"

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Phillips: My point is that the health community sees through this. This is a transparent relationship. They see that the funder is the government. Listen carefully to the comments of the government.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary? Place it, please.

Mr Phillips: Does the minister accept as a matter of principle the responsibility for funding the settlement as the then leader, now Premier, indicated on 15 February in this House?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Liberal critic for Health knows that the amounts which were announced by this government in transfer payments for hospitals in Ontario for this fiscal year add up to $637 million in addition to those funds which had been allocated last year; $637 million is an awful lot more money for institutional hospital services in this province.

The Ontario Hospital Association had asked us for more funding than that. We explained to them that these are very difficult times financially and that we also wish to encourage our institutions, our hospital services, to move towards more outpatient care and to rearrange the way services are provided so that they will be provided as effectively and efficiently as possible; $637 million extra this year is not a small amount.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. I know the Premier intended to introduce a clear, comprehensible, easily enforceable conflict-of-interest system that the public would understand. Frankly, he has done nothing but create confusion, and what he should do is take the whip or the broom to Ross McClellan and all those people who advise him in his office about what to do. They have led him down the garden path.

First of all, he issues a statement on 2 April that everything is in order. It turns out that nothing is in order. Well, a mistake was made. The Premier takes credit for it, but it is those boobs advising him. We all know that. Then the next thing that happens is that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner writes us a letter at our request, saying that there are nine ministers or parliamentary assistants who own assets presently which under the Premier's rules should be divested. Then yesterday they arm the poor Premier with this secret memo issued to the cabinet which either says, "We've changed the rules, if that's the way you'd like to have it, though we're not telling anybody," or "You're exempted."

I put this simple question to the Premier. He has been badly let down by that booboisie around him. Why does he simply not do this? Why does he not issue a list of the people who have divested and what they have divested and the people who have not divested and why they have not divested? Then everybody would know for the first time what is going on.

Hon Mr Rae: That sounds like a good idea.

Mr Scott: My supplementary begins with the fact that I know it is a good idea. I suggested it.

The issue is this: There have been a dozen good ideas put in front of this Premier before. He says they are good ideas, and he never does it. What I want to know is: Is he going to do this? If so, when?

The supplementary question arises this way. Under the Premier's own guidelines, if he exempts a minister or parliamentary assistant from divestment he undertook that their assets would be placed in a trust. The Minister of Citizenship has undertaken or been directed -- I thought she undertook, I think Ross McClellan wanted everybody to think she had been directed -- to put hers in a blind trust. That is great. How about the other nine? Are they going to be required to put their assets in blind trusts as the principles require?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I hope you will notice how short my answer was on the first question. I will try to be equally short.

I said to the member that in light of what has happened I think that is a good idea, in order to clear it up. If I may say so, I think the member opposite has created more confusion than light in this area.

1430

Mr Sorbara: That's Bill Vander Zalm talking.

Hon Mr Rae: I undertake --

Mr Sorbara: Bill Vander Zalm used that. The public did not know so it is okay, there is no conflict. You have three years now.

An hon member: You will never make it.

The Speaker: The main source of the volume is also the member who wanted us to have more questions asked.

Hon Mr Rae: As I hear it from the member for St George-St David, he has asked me to do two things. He is asking me to make clear the list of what has been divested and what has not been divested with respect to my guidelines -- not with respect to the law which he introduced, but with respect to my guidelines -- and he has asked me to give reasons with respect to why certain things are being handled in a certain way. I think he is entitled to both of those things.

Mr Scott: I plead guilty in front of the Premier to causing confusion. After all, it was I who brought to the attention of the Premier that his press release was not accurate. It was I who compelled the Premier to release a secret memo to his cabinet colleagues indicating that the guidelines would not be applied in every case, and if that caused confusion, and I can assure him it did, I guess I am responsible for it.

But the point I want to make is one to which the Premier has not responded. Will he require, where there is no divestment, that the assets be put in a trust? The guidelines require that and the Premier knows perfectly well why. It is so the assets will be managed by someone other than the minister or the parliamentary assistant. Why is that important? We should look at the Minister of Community and Social Services. She is a landlord. She is discussing the new bill with respect to rights of landlords in cabinet. If she is managing her landlord premises, if they are not in a trust she is going to have insider information about the rules the government is going to impose on landlords. That is why the Premier put that in his guidelines.

What I want from him today and what I think the people are entitled to have is his assurance that he will compel his ministers, who are not obliged to divest by virtue of an exemption, to do what he said they would do, put their assets in a trust.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just respond very directly to one comment the member has made. If one followed the same logic that has been put forward by the member for St George-St David, one could argue equally strongly that a tenant who is a member of the cabinet would have similar, quote, "inside information." Let's be clear about one thing. This government has done more with respect to conflict of interest than the member's government ever did or was willing to do or ever will do. In committee this party and that party have consistently said they do not even like the idea of divestment at all. More has been divested by more ministers in this government than ever took place under previous administrations in the history of the province.

It is quite obvious to me that having answered in good faith his first question, the member had nothing better to ask in the second two.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. It has been two days since it was revealed that his cabinet, without consultation, changed the traditional oath for police officers. Since then, the Premier will be aware as all members of this House are aware, that public outrage over this offensive action and this decision has continued to mount. My office has received more calls on this issue than on any other in my 10 years in the Legislature.

The people of this province are clearly offended. They are outraged. Yesterday, when I and the member for Simcoe West raised this issue in the House, the Premier tested our intelligence and he tested the intelligence of the people of Ontario by saying there is no difference between the old oath and the new one. I do not believe that; Susan Eng does not believe that. If he believes, as he said to us yesterday, that there is no difference, I ask him again, why did he change the oath?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member what I said yesterday. I do not think his characterization of my answer is entirely fair, but that is a difference of view which we will no doubt have. What I said yesterday was that I cannot see how one can argue that, by expressing one's loyalty to Canada and the Constitution of Canada, one is doing anything other than expressing one's loyalty to all the institutions of the country, including the monarchy. That is the answer I gave. It is because of that view and because we felt it was appropriate for people to swear allegiance to the realities of the situation with respect to Canada and the laws and Constitution of Canada that the change was made.

Mr Harris: Clearly the public did not ask for the change, the police forces did not ask for it, the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations did not ask for it; neither did B'nai-Brith Canada, the Baltic Federation in Canada, nor did the Armenian National Committee of Canada nor the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, representing 38 national ethnic organizations.

I know that because we have contacted every one of these groups. In fact, I cannot find one person outside of the Premier's cabinet who has asked for this change. I admit I have not talked to Susan Eng. Very simply, I ask the Premier this: Was it Susan Eng who asked for the change?

Hon Mr Rae: I answered that question yesterday and I think it is important to be fair. The member asked me yesterday whether it had anything to do with Susan Eng and I said no. Today he is asking me the same question. The answer is still the same. This has nothing to do with Susan Eng, nothing whatsoever.

Mr Harris: Yesterday I asked the Premier if he changed it for Susan Eng and he tested my credibility and said no. Today I asked him a very different question. I am trying to find one person, one group in the province of Ontario who requested the change, not why he changed it or whether he changed it for that. I asked him, "Did she request it?" which is quite a different question.

This morning, radio station CFLY in Kingston conducted what they call "the people poll"; 93% of all callers want the Premier to restore the reference to the monarchy in the oath of allegiance. As I am sure his office knows by now, these people are not voices in the wilderness in this province. They are the voice of Ontario. They are the voice of Canadians.

Will the Premier admit today that he has made a mistake and will he today restore this symbol of Ontario's and of Canada's heritage?

Hon Mr Rae: I just happen to feel that at the end of the day, Canadians who work and who serve the public of Canada should be able to feel they can take an oath and swear their allegiance to the Constitution of the country and that that includes the monarchy.

Mr Harris: Whether one single Canadian other than Susan Eng wants to or not, the Premier feels they should do this.

1440

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier. On 5 April, the Treasurer of the province rejected the recommendation from the mayors involved with the cross-border shopping issue. The Treasurer rejected their suggestion of tax favourability for border communities and he rejected it for this reason. He said, "Where do you draw the line on what a border community is?" I believe he was saying to the mayors of the border communities, "It's impossible to do that."

Since the Solicitor General has promised to exempt border communities from the new Sunday closing law, will the Premier, for the benefit of the Treasurer and this House, clearly define what he considers to be a border community?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not recall the Solicitor General ever saying any such thing or in fact my ever saying any such thing in a number of scrums where I was asked this question, indeed in the House. What we have said is that we are going to talk to people and that is what we have been doing. We will be bringing forward legislation with respect to Sunday closings, I hope, in the relatively near future.

Mr Harris: Perhaps just to refresh the Premier's memory, I could quote from Derek Ferguson, Toronto Star, 28 March 1991: "The province plans to exempt border citizens from its promised Sunday closing law, Solicitor General Mike Farnan says."

By way of supplementary, 90% of Ontarians live within 90 minutes of a border. The issue of cross-border shopping is crippling the economy of this province at a time when we are deeply in a recession. The only response we have seen from this government is the promise of a weak, piecemeal approach to the Sunday shopping aspect of it, one aspect of the problem.

The representatives from many communities are here today. I have two simple questions: One, does the Premier agree there is a problem? Two, if he does agree, can he tell us, other than setting up a task force, what it is he plans to do about the problem, from his perspective, of the provincial involvement in this problem?

Hon Mr Rae: There is a problem. It is not a Sunday shopping problem; it is a cross-border shopping question.

Mr Harris: I did not say that. The Premier was not listening to the question. If he would listen, I said that, but he was too busy yapping.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I have listened very carefully to what the member said. In answer to the leader of the third party, what I am saying is that the solution to the problem can only come from the three levels of government and from businesses working together.

The problem of cross-border shopping is a serious one. It involves questions of Customs, it involves questions of the dollar, it involves questions of marketing with respect to cross-border communities and obviously it involves questions of costs and marketing and a whole variety of questions in terms of the competition between our two sectors. That is why we have to work together.

It is not an easy one to solve, because the reality is that there are literally thousands of people who are doing it. It involves changing people's minds about how and when to shop and the costs and consequences of cross-border shopping, shopping in American border --

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please? Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: I do not think we need any more task forces or any more studies on the hundreds of millions of dollars it is costing Canada and on the hundreds of millions of dollars it is costing Ontario. The Premier has acknowledged that there is a problem. He has given border communities little in the way of any assistance, though. The Treasurer has said, "Forget any help in the budget."

We know we have both a short-term and a long-term problem. The province of Ontario is part of both the short-term and the long-term problem. We have a tourist season coming up. We are asking the Premier now to fish or cut bait. Does he have any plan in place or any ideas to help either in the short term or the long term by way of correcting the part of the problem that the provincial government is involved in, ie, taxes in excess of any other jurisdiction in North America?

Hon Mr Rae: If the leader of the third party says we do not need a task force, he is taking issue not with me but with all the mayors of the communities in this province who have asked for such a task force. They are the ones who suggested the task force. It is the mayors of the communities who have. I say we are ready, willing and able to do that and to work in partnership with them and the federal government. We recognize there is a problem and we are going to do everything we can to help and to be positive about trying to solve it.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Offer: I have a question of the Premier. I am sure that he will be, as are all members of the Legislature, familiar with the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. I would, if I might, like to highlight in part section 8 for members' information, which reads: "A member of the executive council shall not...hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization or political party." This section goes on to state that the member of the executive council shall comply with this requirement within 60 days of appointment or exempt himself or herself by placing his or her assets in trust.

I ask the Premier if he is aware that the Minister of Community and Social Services, as recently as yesterday, continues to hold directorships in corporations, apparently in contravention of section 8. Furthermore -- and I believe this to be of some great severity -- I have a letter from the conflict commissioner stating that the minister has not divulged this information in her disclosure statement to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, as required by the Legislature. Is the Premier aware of this?

Hon Mr Rae: I am not aware of it, and I would appreciate, obviously, any facts that the member has.

Mr Offer: Certainly we will provide that information to the Premier. But I would like to ask the Premier, given the very serious breach of this conflict-of-interest act, whether he will, as is permitted under the conflict-of-interest legislation, ask the conflict commissioner to investigate into the minister's holding, and in particular the corporate directorships.

Hon Mr Rae: I think, to be fair, that I would appreciate having the information which the member says he has. There have been phone conversations with the conflict commissioner. If the member has information other than what is available to the conflict commissioner, I think he has an obligation, in fairness, to share it with the House, to share it with the minister. involved and to let us know what he is talking about.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Eves: I have a question to the Minister of Health. On 21 December 1990 the minister is quoted as saying that she is carefully monitoring what is being paid for through OHIP, speaking with respect to drug and alcohol addiction in the United States, "We are checking travel expenses, frills, and we are cutting them off."

The minister will be aware, of course, of the CBC interview last night with a particular patient who billed OHIP for drug treatment in the United States at six different institutions over a period of two years at the amount of $500,000. This money included such items as pills, group therapy and laundry. The individual says that he went without getting any kind of an okay from OHIP. He also says that he received $11,000, payable to him. When he did not fill out the appropriate OHIP claims forms, they sent him a cheque directly for $11,000. What he did with that money was he bought clothes and put a little aside for his return to Toronto. How can this be when the minister said that she was cutting this off on 21 December?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The gentleman in question, Wayne Ethier, in fact returned to Ontario --

Mr Scott: A minister was prosecuted in New Brunswick for doing that.

Mr Elston: That is a breach of the privacy act. You are not supposed to name people.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He was notified on 17 December 1990 that OHIP was finished paying for him. He returned to Toronto on 30 or 31 December, according to our information, which means that when I indicated that we were following up such cases, which are unfortunately cases that have existed in the operation of OHIP and in our policies for out-of-country payment of medical services --

Mr Bradley: The CBC did not reveal his name. First time I knew it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: When I indicated in December that we were following up, we were.

Mr Eves: As early as 1988 the Provincial Auditor reported this problem to the then Minister of Health. The minister has said that she has cut this out on 21 December 1990. She also said on 21 January 1991 that in the future people will not be using a self-referral system. That is the minister's statement.

1450

From talking to Dr MacMillan, her assistant deputy minister in charge of OHIP, he tells my office that there is no such ban on self-referral systems. It is suggested to patients that they get referrals -- not mandatory, suggested. But in fact OHIP is still paying for treatment in the United States without any sort of referral whatsoever.

The minister said she was dealing with the problem. She has the Hansen report that has been sitting on her desk, by a US consulting firm that she hired to look into this instead of a Canadian consulting firm, I might add. It has been sitting on her desk since 1 March. What about these ambiguities? She said there have to be referrals. Dr MacMillan says there does not. She said she has solved the problem. It is not solved. How does she explain this?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Health critic for the Conservative Party has managed to confuse the general with the particular, a statement about my intention in the future to have referral policies in place with the fact that they are not yet in place. As we have discussed this very policy area several times in the Legislature, I have always tried to make it clear that we are working on the development of a comprehensive set of policies and I think that he will feel reassured by my statement to him here today that he can expect the announcement of those policies within the very short future.

The past was not our problem. We did, when we came in, begin to address this problem, and we will make sure that he will be among the first to have a copy of our announcement when we make it in the very short future.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Abel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Many consumers are increasingly concerned about possible chemical residues in the food that they eat. At the same time, we need to support the farmers of this province as they go through very difficult economic times. Can the minister explain what kinds of programs his ministry has to address the concerns of consumers about chemicals, both in food and the environment, and which at the same time address the economic needs of farmers?

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, I would like to assure the member that this ministry and indeed the farmers of this province are committed to reducing the amount of chemicals that they use in their operations. As part of that, we have the system called Food Systems 2002, which is a three-pronged approach. It looks at our providing more information and research on integrated pest management, providing some more research on how to reduce the use of pesticides and look at alternative pest controls. Third, we are looking at education of producers and vendors as to how to deal with pesticides safely.

Finally, we are building a new food lab in Guelph which will allow us to test foods for residues and we will have probably the most modern lab in North America. We will be able to reassure consumers that the food they are eating is safe indeed, and may perhaps be the safest in North America.

Mr Abel: Can the minister describe in some more detail what kind of assistance is provided to farmers who wish to use fewer chemicals and pesticides.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Assistance for farmers to date has come primarily from our land stewardship program which deals with soil conservation, with use and handling of wastes and chemicals. Second, we are doing research at our agricultural colleges and research stations in order to come up with alternative practices.

Finally, I would like to add that we are looking to collect information on ecological farming practices. We have found that there is a need to have that kind of information available for farmers who are interested in doing that. We have now in our ministry started making that information available to people who are interested in having it.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: Is there a point of order?

Mrs Sullivan: Can we stop the clock?

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I believe I have a point of privilege. I understand that as I was answering the question from the Liberal Health critic --

Some hon members: Conservative.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Conservative. Sorry about that. They all look the same.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Gigantes: From this side. I understand that some of his colleagues were suggesting that what I was saying about the gentleman whom we were discussing and about the case was confidential information. I am horrified that anybody would think so. I would like to make it clear that the gentleman in question in fact gave permission to the CBC to request under freedom of information all materials related to his confidential medical records. We complied with his request and gave that information to the CBC. That is how the information becomes a question of public record.

Mr Elston: On the same point, Mr Speaker: Because a third party receives a consent for release of information under that act, it does not allow a minister of the crown to release that information to the entire world. That is not a consent by that person to have the information released to everybody. The CBC asked for the information, received it, and maintained the confidentiality of that individual.

The act prevents people who are in charge of personal information, personal files, from making public that individual's situation. There was no name attached. This has been a clear violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There have been in this nation of ours two prosecutions in other jurisdictions of ministers who in fact have released private information, and this is information of the most private nature that I could ever think of. That minister has violated a statute that is now poisoning the life of that individual by making his name public right across the province, from Cornwall to Kenora, from Windsor to Moosonee. Everybody knows.

It is not sufficient for the minister to say a third party was given his consent for their purposes. The rest of us were not. Mr Speaker, I think you should look into the act of violating the provincial statute by this minister who is in charge of the most personal information on every person in this province. She should resign for this most unfortunate breach of the privacy portion of that statute.

Mr Eves: On the same point, Mr Speaker: I could not agree more with the House leader of the Liberal Party. It is exactly why I did not use the gentleman's name during my question, and I must say that the previous minister certainly never breached that confidentiality. The only time the minister can use an individual's name is when she specifically gets that person's consent for her purposes.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister would just take her seat for a moment.

I listened carefully to the points raised by the Minister of Health, the member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound. I will consider the matter. It is not a point of privilege. It certainly is a point of disagreement. I take the matter seriously. I will take a look at it and I will report back to the House as quickly as possible.

I take it we still have an interest in question period.

Mr Kwinter: This gives a new meaning to NDP: 'nother dumb policy.

The Speaker: Would you allow your seatmate to place a question.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will know that X-Pert Metal Finishing, which is located in Burlington, in my constituency, shut down its operations in the summer of 1989. Waste which was generated by the electroplating operations was left on the site. Prior to this and after, the region of Halton, the city of Burlington and the Ministry of the Environment all took steps to control the site. On 2 January of this year a burst water pipe caused a spill. Public concern was sparked when the extent of the hazardous products which were on the site became known in the community. The Ministry of the Environment is monitoring the site and Barnes Security has been on a 24-hour patrol since early March.

I am asking the minister if she would agree that the authority to act in this matter is in her hands and if the environmental decommissioning of this site, not just fencing the site or providing a security patrol, is what is needed.

Hon Mrs Grier: I entirely agree with the member that this is a very serious situation. The company abandoned the site and left I forget how many barrels there containing toxic compounds. There is not a great deal of security on the site. The ministry had in fact put security on the site in response to concerns from the residents, had beefed that up, and we have now issued a draft control order to X-Pert ordering them to clean up. They have responded to that and our next step will be to consider issuing an actual control order. They will have, under the law, time to act on that control order, and if they fail to do so, we will be in a position to take more action.

1500

Mrs Sullivan: The comments of the minister in fact will not be of much concern to the neighbours of the site, the residents of Burlington, or to the Burlington city council, because she has glossed over several facts although she has alluded to some of them. First of all, security guards have been found to be asleep while they are on duty. Some 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of cyanide chemicals in addition to an equal volume of acid chemicals are stored on the site. That is a lethal combination.

The chemicals are stored in an unsegregated fashion in deteriorated containers. The site is not fully fenced. Part of it is accessible to children through an orchard at the rear. Houses are located as close as 50 feet to the site, and the area close to the site is densely populated. There is clear reason to expect that the owners, who have not met their previous obligations, will not meet their obligations to clean up the site now with or without an order.

The city of Burlington has demanded that the minister expedite the cleanup. There is a potential for human and environmental disaster here that could dwarf Hagersville. The minister can act now; she has the authority. Will she use her powers now, step in with the money for the immediate cleanup of the site and get those chemicals out of there?

Hon Mrs Grier: I entirely share the member's concern about the security on the site and I am very disturbed at what she says, that the site is now accessible. Certainly my information was that when there was a breach of the security, the security guard was dismissed and that the security had in fact remained tight.

Contrary to what the member says, I do not have the legal right at this point to move in and act. The compounds that are there are certainly hazardous but we believe they do not pose an immediate hazard, and under the law the company has 15 days to appeal the control order. When that time has expired, then we have the right to move in and take action, and I can assure the members that is precisely what I intend to do as soon as the legal appeal process has expired.

SCHOOL BOARD STRIKE

Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Education is no doubt aware of the fact that the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Roman Catholic Separate School Board is on strike in part of the area that I cover. Can the minister tell us what guarantees she can provide to ensure that students receive their grades in order that they can apply for postsecondary education this fall? Applications have to go in very shortly. Can she provide us with some sort of assurance as to what she can do to guarantee us this?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I know that the people in S-D-G are very concerned about that strike and obviously the students and their families are increasingly concerned about the situation, and I empathize with that. As the member knows, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act enables the commission to advise us when it believes that the length of a strike is endangering the success of students. They have not done so yet. I cannot and obviously would not act until they do advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that.

Mr Villeneuve: I am sure the minister is aware that the teachers did finish marking the papers that were written by the students. However, they were not provided with the grades and the results of those papers. If there is any further delay, these students will miss their applications for post-secondary education. Does the minister feel that the teachers are acting in a legal manner by withholding papers which have been marked and yet they tell us they do not use the students as pawns in this? Does the minister think they are acting legally?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As far as I am aware, they are well within their rights when they are in a strike position to do so. I was not aware that was the particular situation because, of course, it really behooves a Minister of Education not to become closely involved with this kind of a situation. There is an arm's-length provision in the law. However, now that the member has raised that issue, I would be happy to ensure that the Education Relations Commission is aware of that and takes into consideration whether or not a recommendation is made to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

CHILD CARE

Mr Hansen: My question also is to the Minister of Education. Currently, capital grants are provided to school boards for the construction of child care facilities only in new and replacement schools. How does the minister intend to address this inflexible situation to ensure that funds are allocated to schools where the facilities are really needed?

Hon Mrs Boyd: This issue was raised in connection with the second reading discussion of Bill 30, which is before the House and which I certainly hope we can continue discussing very soon. The members of the opposition party and the third party, as well as boards of trustees, teachers and parents across the province, have indicated to us as a government that they would like to see more flexibility in terms of the allocations of those funds. When we come to discuss the bill in detail, the government is quite prepared to come and outline exactly how that flexibility can best be achieved to meet the needs of communities.

FLOODING

Mr Ramsay: I just sent over to the Minister of Natural Resources some pictures of the flooding that was referred to earlier in one of the members' statements today. I find it very strange that the member for Victoria-Haliburton made such a self-congratulatory statement in the House and paraded municipal officials here. I went up to his riding, after he did not having twice being invited to go to his own riding to attend public meetings of the people, 300 of them who are affected by this flooding. I went up there this morning to talk to these people, and they arc concerned about what this government is doing for them in regard to the damage that is there.

They have the chance, now that the water is subsiding, to take a look at this damage and do some estimates of what it is. People are saying now that it is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources what he is doing and if he has spoken to his colleague who happens to be his seatmate, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Are they going to assist these people?

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the member for his interest. I am sure he is aware of the process that has been made clear. The crews of the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as the Ontario Provincial Police and fire departments and so on in the area have been onsite and have assisted people who have been stranded. They are doing very good work and important work. But the member should know that the process is clear. The municipality must request disaster relief from the provincial government. When the provincial government receives such a request, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs must consider that and make recommendations to the cabinet. We have not received such a request. We would be glad to consider it if and when we receive it.

Mr Ramsay: I would expect the member for Algoma to have a little bit of sympathy as this very same situation happened to members of his own constituency on the Goulais River a few years ago when ironically he went to the then member for Victoria-Haliburton, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and asked for such assistance. That minister brought assistance of four government dollars for every one raised by the member's constituents. I think that the constituents of Burnt River could expect the same.

But if the minister is not today going to grant the assistance that these people deserve, I would ask and the people of Victoria-Haliburton are asking that the minister at least investigate and inquire into this to find out why this happened, why the MNR level-testing equipment was not functioning and whether there was proper co-ordination between the various jurisdictions that have charge of the watershed area in that particular part of the province.

Hon Mr Wildman: I find it unacceptable to have a member get up in this House, after all of the work that the members of the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies have done to assist the community, and suggest that this government and the people who work for this government do not have sympathy for the people who have had to endure this flooding. That is just not acceptable.

1510

The member suggests that the situation is similar to the situation that has occurred from time to time in the Goulais River valley in my own constituency. It is similar in that there is high water. The similarity ends there. The situation in the Goulais River, as the member should be aware, is that in that part of northern Ontario it is an unorganized community. The process, therefore, is different in an unorganized community than it is in a municipality. The municipality is aware that it must determine that it is a disaster and request disaster relief. We would be happy to consider such a request.

I should point out, though, that in the Goulais River situation and in this one, provision is made to provide compensation to people whose permanent homes have been damaged. It is not provided for recreational properties.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. On Tuesday 5 March 1991, Ernie Checkeris, president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, outlined a proposal for restructuring the school boards in Sudbury. The consolidated school board model that he envisioned would allow each board to maintain its curriculum and programs but the boards would share administrative support services. Cost saving could be achieved in the areas of transportation, purchasing, financing, etc.

Does the minister agree that the consolidated school board model is more cost-effective, and will she launch a timely investigation to determine how much money could be saved if it was implemented across the province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I said to Mr Checkeris around his plan and have said on many occasions, when we look at the financing of education as part of our review, we are quite sure that particular proposal and a number of others that suggest the way in which administrative costs might be improved will come forward, and they will receive thorough consideration at that time.

However, I would remind the member that it is extremely important for us as a government to continue to protect the constitutional rights of those who have rights to separate school boards under our constitution, and that the separate school boards are very reluctant to even see this question opened because of their experience with public school boards and their lack of governance of their own school system in the past. So, as we go through these discussions, we can expect that we need to meet not just the financial needs but also the constitutional needs of all the citizens of Ontario.

Mrs Cunningham: I suppose I certainly agree with your concerns, but right now it seems that the financial concerns are almost as important as the governance concerns, because education just cannot sustain the quality we have come to enjoy in the past, given the kind of funding that they have now. As a result of the more recent tax, provincial share, I would say, in fact has not increased as the minister had promised. The 60%, of course, was the New Democrat promise. It was not ours; it was theirs. That is the minister's responsibility.

But I think everybody is concerned across this province about the growing swell of property tax revolts. It may be fair, it may not be fair, but everybody is concerned. Citizens who are fed up with high taxes are beginning to threaten not to pay, and that is a bigger problem for school boards. It could have an impact on the delivery of education right across the province of Ontario. It is a reality. Everyone in this Legislative Assembly is living with it now.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mrs Cunningham: I am going to ask the minister if she is concerned about these emerging tax revolts, and what specific measures she is planning to introduce to ensure that we provide a high quality of education in the most cost-effective way possible.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think I have answered this question a number of times in this House and will do so again. We are very concerned about the tax concerns of the citizens and definitely agree that it is not appropriate for these essential services to be paid for to this extent by property taxes. It is a regressive tax system, and we do not agree with that.

We are going to change it as part of our work on all taxation and on education financing. It is important that we do it right and it is important that, as we are looking at this, we look at all the creative ways in which we can make the funding of education much more efficient, much more effective and certainly much more cost-effective for our students. It is my belief that, had the extension of separate school funding been done in a way that permitted us to really look at our resources at the time rather than as rapidly as it was, we might have been in much better shape. So we have a long legacy of jigged funding that we need to look at.

SUCCESSION DUTIES

Mr Owens: I am happy that the member for London North has raised the issue of tax loopholes.

My question is to the Treasurer. I guess I have always heard that when you die, you cannot take your money with you. However, the federal Tory government is currently working on ways to help the wealthy take some of it with them. We have been informed that the federal government is tinkering with the succession duties that will allow larger loopholes for the wealthy to escape taxes on their estates.

First of all, is the Treasurer aware of this situation and, second, what type of effect will this new regulation have on the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the very difficult question. The member is correct, the federal government has drafted legislation. The member may recall that back in 1972, I believe it was, when capital gains were allowed to be put into a trust fund, it was also allowed that the gains that were realized on those assets in the trust fund would not be taxed for another 21 years. That 21-year period is up in 1993 and the federal government has now brought in legislation which is going to allow that taxation to be deferred until the death of what I believe they call exempt beneficiaries. Exempt beneficiaries are spouses, parents, grandparents and children. So in a sense it is a deferral of taxes that are owed on the gains and the assets contained in those trusts.

We have tried to look at the effect of that in terms of revenue on the province, and quite frankly I do not know what the effect will be. We have not been able to come up with a number.

SOCIAL WORK

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that at a press conference yesterday the participants in Project Legislation called for the immediate regulation of the profession of social work. The minister will also be aware, of course, that Project Legislation is a province-wide campaign of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers and a coalition of 50 major organizations.

In response to a question in the House on Tuesday, the Premier indicated somewhat surprisingly that this was something that continues to be under review, yet in response to an OAPSW 1987 questionnaire, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, agreed with the statement that there is a need for legislation to regulate the practice of social work in the province of Ontario and that if elected he would actively support legislation to regulate the practice of social work.

In 1989 the Premier, then again Leader of the Opposition, indicated that he was pleased to have helped convince the government that regulations are needed to ensure that the profession will continue to develop and expand.

The former government committed to bring forward legislation to regulate the practice of social work. I would like to ask the minister whether she will carry forward the commitments of both the Premier and the former government whether she will recommit to introducing legislation for the regulation of social work in Ontario.

Hon Ms Akande: Certainly the member is quite right that we are, very interested in the legislation for social workers. We have in fact initiated a great deal of interest in this area because many of the groups, apparently groups to which the previous government spoke, have come to us, have met with us about such legislation. Some of those groups are quite concerned about the fact that legislation may have an effect on them, a lesser position than they are in today.

Those are groups that have been doing the job for a long time, that are representing ethnic and cultural groups which are different from the mainstream but which in fact have not the same qualifications as the social workers who have graduated from universities. Some of these have graduated from community colleges, so there is a variation in the types of legislation that are wanted. We are responding to these groups, we are considering their presentations and we will be bringing something forth.

1520

Mrs McLeod: The studies and the consultations on this issue have in fact been taking place for at least six years. The concerns that the minister has identified this afternoon have been identified in the past and were part of what was being resolved in preparing to bring legislation forward.

In the meantime, Ontario remains the only province that does not have some form of regulation for social work. I believe that the minister must be concerned with some of the documented abuses that were brought forward by Project Legislation in its press conference yesterday and that continue to exist because the public is not protected and because social workers are not legally accountable. I would ask if the minister would assure us that the legislation will be brought forward in an expeditious manner and if she will in fact share with this House a very specific timetable for introducing the legislation.

Hon Ms Akande: Let me first respond to some of the information that the member has shared with us. First of all yes, she is quite right that there was in fact a consultation that went on previously. It was brought to a conclusion, to a decision about legislation which in fact was opposed by many of the social workers who have come to see me who were not responsive, were not accepting of the format of the legislation which was to have been brought forward by the previous government.

That in fact sponsored our taking another look at it and coming to our own decisions. As has so frequently been pointed out in this House, we are now the government and therefore it is our concern to make sure that we have legislation which in fact satisfies those who need it most.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Sterling: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, section 61 reads, "No person shall, (a) wilfully disclose personal information in contravention of this act." Subsection 2 says that every person who contravenes subsection I is guilty of an of fence and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000.

Will the Solicitor General undertake an investigation of the Minister of Health for the statements which prima facie appear to have breached this act this afternoon in this Legislature to ensure that our laws of confidentiality are held up in this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: I will take the member's question as notice and I will act appropriately.

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

FLOODING

Mr Drainville: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There were allegations made by the member for Timiskaming about what was happening in Victoria-Haliburton. I just want to say that it seems to me that those statements were untrue, they were baseless. They had to do with the fact he indicated that the ministry had not been doing its job and in fact that the government had not been doing its job. I have spoken with the municipalities involved and the municipalities involved realize that it is up to them to ensure that they pass a resolution and then the provincial government has already indicated that it will move on that as quickly as it can.

The Speaker: The member may know that it is not a point of privilege, although for him, at least, it is a point of irritation.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Curling: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: For days I have been waiting to speak on an issue here and this was on Bill 4. I was elected in 1985 resoundingly, and in 1987, and again in 1990, to bring the issues to this House on behalf of the people of Scarborough North, and other issues too. Bill 4 is of great concern to the people of my riding and I have waited patiently until the round comes around for my time to speak. I waited and waited. I feel that my privilege has been deprived under section 5 of the standing orders. I am not able to present the case for the people of Scarborough North.

I think the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel had done very well in presenting his case. I want to ask, when will you, as Speaker, protect my rights of presenting the views of Scarborough North?

The Speaker: I appreciate the matter which the member raises. Unfortunately, the time to have raised such a concern was at the time when closure was moved.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Marland: I have a petition signed by 1,509 people. "We, the undersigned, respectfully request the Premier of Ontario and his current Minister of Education to take heed and expedite the following demands which are critical to a very large segment of the population of Ontario.

"1. Immediate steps must be taken to include a course in British studies in the curriculum of all Ontario schools. Such a course would enable young Canadians to appreciate the immeasurable contributions that Canada has received from Britain, the mother country, in countless human and material ways.

"2. Further, we ask that a program entitled British Heritage be immediately introduced into the curriculum for elementary schools, to compensate Canadian children of British origin or background for the fact that no provision has been made for them under the heritage languages cultural programs, to which all Canadians contribute regardless of ethnicity."

I feel that this petition is particularly significant today because of the outrage expressed by the people of this province in view of the decision of the current government's cabinet to remove the oath of allegiance to the Queen for our police officers in this province. I support this petition totally and I have affixed my signature thereto.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tilson: I am requested to present a petition to this House from 13 constituents from my riding.

"Whereas people are being lured from their jobs every day because of the free money that is being handed out by the provincial government, outlined by Diane Francis in the Sunday Sun, section C;

"And whereas the recommendations called Back on Track are appalling and ludicrous;

"And whereas it will be interesting to see where the government is going to come up with all of this money to support this welfare program;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly" and the resolution is set forth, Mr Speaker.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1991

Mr Sutherland moved first reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal College.

Motion agreed to.

ADVOCACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'INTERVENTION

Ms Ziemba moved first reading of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

M^me Ziemba propose la première lecture du projet de loi 74, Loi concern ant la prestation de services d'intervenants en faveur tea personnes vulnérables.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, I would ask for unanimous consent to proceed with the vote on government notice of motion 16 at this point.

Agreed to.

1536

TIME ALLOCATION

The House divided on Miss Martel's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes-63

Abel, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays-36

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Curling, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch, B., Nixon, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Eglinton with a point of order.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, I am the member for Wilson Heights.

The Speaker: I realize that, but I recognize the member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I will accede to the member for Wilson Heights and make my point of order second.

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE COMMEMORATION

Mr Kwinter: I rise on a point of personal privilege that pains me, Mr Speaker. I am sure that it was not intended, but given the situation of last week -- I understand the government held a reception to commemorate the independence of Israel. Last night the Premier attended, along with myself and other colleagues, a massive demonstration of over 1,000 people. I understand a reception was held today and the members of the Jewish faith who are in this caucus were not even invited. I just found out about it. I think it is a terrible affront, not only to the community but to these members, and I think it is something that really should be raised.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the member that I am sure if there was a mistake made, we apologize and I would apologize directly to the member. He will know that I introduced him last night to the gathering. I will have to ask for some inquiries as to how that could have happened, because if it did happen, it is entirely inappropriate. I apologize to him and I apologize in advance to the member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: I too was affected and somewhat embarrassed when I met the individuals who were invited to the luncheon as they were leaving the building. I was asked: "Why were you not there? Why were you not notified?" I appreciate what the Premier has said, but I hope this will not happen again.

The Speaker: The members realize that technically it is not a point of privilege, but it is a sensitive issue and I appreciate the fact that it has been discussed here.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton. This is on a different point?

Ms Poole: Yes, this is actually a different point of order, perhaps a happier one.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Ms Poole: I understand that today is the last day that our pages are with us. On behalf of all members I would like to thank them for their hard work, their diligence and their patience with members.

The Speaker: Our pages have indeed served with distinction, and the comments from the member for Eglinton are most warmly appreciated.

Another point of order?

Mr Kormos: It is a point in the broadest sense and it echoes the compliments paid to these young people, the young women and men who have served us for the past weeks from cities all over this province, who have, I hope, enjoyed their stay here, as I have, and who are to be complimented and congratulated. I tell members that you should be very proud of yourselves, every one of you; your families and your communities should be very proud of you. You are outstanding young people, some of whom I am sure will be back in this Legislature in other personae, other guises in years to come, some in the front benches, some in the opposition benches, some in the third party benches and perhaps some of you, God forbid, in the back benches. Enjoy the rest of your year.

Hon Miss Martel: Before I call the second order, I would like to advise you, Mr Speaker, that there has been agreement among the three parties that we will defer votes coming out of committee of the whole House until Monday after routine proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Resuming consideration of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Section 9:

The Chair: Order, please. If you want to carry on conversations, please do it outside of the House. We are resuming consideration of Ms Poole's amendment to section 9 of the bill. Any further comments or questions or amendments? Do you have any comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Mr Tilson: No, you asked for further amendments, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Ms Poole has moved that subsections 100b(1) and (2) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), this part applies to every application for rent increase filed after the 28 November 1990.

"(2) This part does not apply to an application filed on or before the day that it is 30 days after the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent if the application,

"(a) is made under section 86 of the act; and

"(b) applies only to capital repairs in respect of which the landlord paid or owed money on or before 28 November 1990 for work that has been done."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye".

All those opposed will please say "nay".

In my opinion the nays have it.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It was my understanding that we were going to stack the vote on all amendments until Monday immediately following routine proceedings.

Hon Mr Cooke: We still have to stay at five to stack them.

Ms Poole: Oh, we must have five people to stack them?

The Chair: That is right.

Ms Poole: Would the member for St Catharines please come back? We need him. Stand up. I think we now have five people, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I see four.

Ms Poole: Well, then there are people standing over there.

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Just to stack the votes.

The Chair: Until when?

Mrs Cunningham: Which will be done on Tuesday.

Ms Poole: On Monday, I believe.

The Chair: Resume your seats.

Ms Poole: Every time? Okay. Thank you.

1550

The Chair: The vote is deferred until after routine proceedings on Monday. Just to remind members, to have a vote stacked you require five members to stand.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: The next amendment, as long as you are aware. I believe the member for Dufferin-Peel has an amendment.

Mr Tilson: I believe I have tabled the next amendment with respect to section 9 of the bill.

The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that section 100b of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"100b(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), this part applies to every rent increase that takes effect on or after the day the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent.

"(2) This part does not apply to a rent increase proposed in an application or set out in an order of the minister, the board or a court if the effective date of the first rent increase in the residential complex applied for in the application or set out in the order is before the day the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent.

"(3) This part does not apply to a notice issued under section 92 if the order under subsection 92(1) on which it is based was made before the day the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent.

"(4) Part VI does not apply where this part applies, unless this part provides otherwise."

Mr Tilson: This is a further amendment with respect to the issue of retroactivity, and I do not propose to spend any further time on that issue, because obviously we have other amendments that we wish to spend further time on that have not yet been discussed. I will say that the purpose of this amendment is essentially that we believe that this act should come into effect when it has received royal assent; in other words, when it is proclaimed. The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the voiding of phase-in orders and to move the retroactive provisions that are currently in the bill to the date of royal assent.

This measure would allow all those who have applications in the system to be processed under the existing rules of rent review. Under Bill 4 a landlord would have to have had the application in the system by 1 July 1990 to be processed under the existing rules, which of course is long before anyone, including the current government, ever dreamed that it would be forming the next government, and I think that is the issue that many people in this province are concerned with.

The retroactive provisions, as I have illustrated, and I had hoped to be able to spend time giving further examples, we believe are punitive and unfair. Landlords have made business decisions, and we have spent some time outlining some of those as examples, under the current rules of this province and now will be unable to recover any moneys that they have spent or any moneys that they are obligated to as a result of contracts with individuals to do work on their premises, and in many cases probably will become bankrupt or could indeed lose their homes and their buildings. During the committee hearings we heard very moving testimony from landlords who actually broke down and cried because they simply will not be able to repay loans and will subsequently go bankrupt. This was made quite clear to us, and some reference has been made in this House.

Under the Residential Rent Regulation Act an order could provide for phasing in over a number of years. I appreciate that there is another amendment that the Liberal Party would be putting forward on this, but we believe that this covers that type of situation. This bill, if passed in its current form, would void all notices of phase-ins with the effective date after 1 October 1990. Once again, we have argued that the minister is bound to honour --

Mr Stockwell: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Mr Chair.

Mr Tilson: Once again, we have argued that the Minister of Housing is bound to honour all orders rendered under the existing legislation of the day, and with Bill 4 he is refusing to honour that commitment to the province of Ontario.

Submissions have been made by the Fair Rental Policy Organization. They have put this province on notice that this action is unconstitutional and they have indeed threatened to launch a legal challenge to this bill.

I will not spend any further time on any further comments with respect to the retroactive issue, but I believe that more time should be spent. Those are my comments.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, this amendment was discussed at length in the committee hearings that we had outside of the Legislature at the standing committee on general government and I indicated to the critic for the third party at that time that the choosing of any date for this legislation presents its difficulties, whether it was 1 October, whether it was 1 November, whether it was 1 January, whether it was 6 September. All of those dates, there is somebody who disagrees with them.

Some of the landlords made the argument that any work they had contemplated carrying out should be eligible for pass-through under the old system, which of course would mean that you would never be able to change the law.

The phase-ins that the member refers to, I understand his argument but I happen to disagree with it. Phase-ins under Bill 51 I think were just a phasing in of uneconomical rents, a slower way in some cases of economically evicting tenants in this province, and had to be dealt with. There are many landlords in this province who will look at this issue of phase-ins objectively and will admit that under Bill 51 it was way too rich -- the icing on the cake, as it was described to me by one landlord in a private conversation -- that it just simply did not reflect anything other than additional cash that was unnecessary under the old legislation.

So I do not offer any apologies for that section of the law. I think that the phase-ins were unfair and that there had to be a stop put to them. There is legislation in other jurisdictions. I was speaking last week with someone from the mayor's office in Boston who was describing the rent control legislation there. They also had to deal with the whole issue of economic loss and refinancing of buildings and have dealt with it in a similar way to the way that we did under Bill 4.

The only other comment I would make is that the critic for the third party -- and it is because of the point of view that he takes -- acts as if Bill 4 has victims who are landlords and he does not talk about the 130,000 units which would have substantial rent increases if we were to accept his amendment. He talks as if it is a win-win situation if we accept his amendment, and he knows as well as I do that it is not a win-win situation.

1600

If we were to accept his amendment, there would be 130,000 units that would have additional rent increases passed through. It would be a major loss and a large number of tenants in this province would be unprotected. I understand his point of view. Besides his point of view on deregulation and leaving tenants completely unprotected, he would like to take sections of Bill 4 and water them down as much as possible so that Bill 4 becomes completely and totally ineffective. We are not prepared to accept those kinds of amendments. We believe in the principle of tenant protection and we are not prepared to accept amendments from the opposition parties which water down or eliminate the effectiveness of Bill 4, as this amendment would do.

Mr Turnbull: I was not going to say anything, but I have to respond to the Minister of Housing in that there is no reason why he could not be honest with the people who are watching this debate --

The Chair: Order. I do not particularly care for the member's saying the minister is not honest. I do not like that.

Mr Turnbull: I will withdraw that term and I will substitute it with the fact that the minister has not completely shared the correct information. I think Winston Churchill said it is a terminological inexactitude.

The minister is well aware of the Conservative Party's position, that we would increase the money available to make sure those people who are in most need, who cannot afford the rent they are paying now, would have greater help, but we would not have shotgun retroactive legislation.

Those people who had been encouraged by Bill 51 to do renovations on buildings, whether he likes Bill 51 or not, it seems only reasonable that they should be able to recover those costs. The assertion by the minister that it was so difficult to find a date is utterly ludicrous, because it is a perfectly well-accepted principle that grandfathering of those people who have conducted a certain activity within the bounds of the law should be protected. This legislation has had a rough ride because of these kinds of distortions of the facts. Landlords were encouraged to do renovations and in fact, when you contemplate under the permanent legislation, as has been suggested, that passthroughs of the cost of renovation will be once again allowed, it exposes the myth the minister is trying to perpetuate. I felt compelled to point that out.

Hon Mr Cooke: I do not want to prolong this because I am sure there are amendments the opposition parties want to put forward, but again, the description that is put on this by the member who has just spoken, that you can grandfather the existing units, is as if there is no loser under his proposal. It would just happen. Money would appear to 130,000 landlords in the province and they would just sort of write off the fact that there are tenants living in those units who would have substantial rent increases. That is not something I am prepared to do.

Under this amendment, it is not just 130,000 units. In effect, Bill 4 would never take effect and there would actually be an incentive --

Mr Tilson: Royal assent.

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, royal assent.

The members opposite have been filibustering on this bill for several weeks, so there would have been an incentive to even go on further to filibuster, because they could have prevented it from ever coming into effect. I can be accused of not putting forward all the facts, but it is clear that the member who just spoke was not putting forward all the facts because he was not admitting the fact that thousands of tenants and thousands of tenant families would be left unprotected.

I would agree that the proposal the member who just spoke has put forward, along with the Housing critic for the Conservative Party on its approach to rent controls, is that it would deregulate and tenants would be left unprotected. Their solution is that they would then have rent subsidies provided by the government.

I do not know what the Treasury critic for the Conservative Party says about that. Every day they come into the Legislature and says: "Don't spend. You've got to cut back." Now today in one five-minute statement by the member for the Conservative Party -- if we were to follow that policy, we would have to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in rent subsidies to adopt the program the Conservative Party puts forward, all in the name of deregulation, all in the name of the landlords of this province, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

I do not see how the Conservative Party can have it both ways, come in in question period and say, "Cut back on taxation," and then come back here and say, "But we would like to give hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to landlords from taxpayers." We do not agree with that approach.

Mr Turnbull: Once again the Minister of Housing has managed, in trying to state what our policy is, to totally misunderstand and misrepresent it. We believe there is money being wasted in every manner by this government, but instead he tries to suggest that we do not have a policy which looks after the most needy in society. We would look after the truly needy. We would not look after the people who are paying much less than the average householder in this province in their gross income on accommodation. That is the distortion of the facts that we are seeing over and over again.

The Chair: Are there any other further comments? If not, I will now put the question.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: I would just like to remind you that when I ask the question and hear only people who are in favour, I have no choice other than to agree with it, and of course it can create some embarrassment. I will leave it up to you.

Mr Conway: I thought you showed remarkable latitude on the last call.

1610

The Chair: Yes, I did. But we will now deal with another amendment that was introduced by the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson moves that subsection 100e(1) of the act be struck out and the following substituted:

"In this section, 'extraordinary operating cost' means a change in the cost of municipal taxes, heating, hydro, water, insurance, cablevision and garbage tippage fees respecting the residential complex,

"(a) that creates a variance of at least 50% from the same component set out in the building operating cost index; or

"(b) that would justify a variance in gross potential rent of at least 1% from the amount resulting from the application of the building operating cost index component."

Mr Tilson: Very briefly, this was a matter that was introduced at the committee level which I had hoped would be resolved by this time and it has not been. The section deals with the grounds for requesting rent increases during the moratorium period and the simple amendment adds the words "garbage tippage fees." I believe that was raised at the committee level, at least I was given the impression by the minister that he agreed there was a problem with that, but it was made impossible as a result of the building operating cost index, BOCI, formula. He indicated to me that he gave his undertaking at the committee and, as I have indicated in the House previously, that he would get back with more information on that subject. That was before the House came back.

That information has not come forward. We believe because of this whole issue of the environment, which of course is talked about daily in this House, that there is going to be an added cost to the operators of the apartment units and that this is indeed an extraordinary operating cost, because it will be charged to the landlords. We believe it is as valid an operating cost as hydro, heating, municipal taxes or the other items in the bill. Accordingly, that is the simple fact of the amendment.

Hon Mr Cooke: We explained in committee that there was a problem with dealing with this item because of the BOCI formula. I do not think I made a commitment to the Housing critic for the third party that I would get more information and explain the entire item to him before we deal with Bill 4.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I think what I tried to say to him was that we needed to look at this item, and it was appropriate to look at this item, in the green paper and for the permanent legislation. But the BOCI formula is in the legislation, in Bill 51, so if there were to be any change, it would have to be a change in the formula and that would have to happen in the new permanent legislation, not in the temporary legislation.

I think I explained that at committee, as did Ministry of Housing staff. If he has any particular suggestions of how this should work in the permanent legislation, I would certainly like to hear it. There may be a submission he would like to make on the green paper that we have not received at this point.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I hope we are going to get an opportunity to make submissions with the green paper. Thus far, we have not. We are not allowed to speak with respect to that process and I would look forward, either at the committee level or elsewhere, to being allowed to make comments with respect to the green paper.

Obviously, the amendment was made at this committee level out of frustration because, just to correct the Minister of Housing, he clearly did make a commitment that he would provide this information. He seemed to indicate he would provide information that would make it quite clear that we would not need to make this amendment. I simply read from Hansard, 21 February 1991. In the middle of this discussion, the minister stated, "I would be willing to share that information with the opposition critics after the ministry had done some assessment of the problem." This, of course, had to do with the issue that the minister just raised with respect to the BOCI formula.

He then continued: "I just ask the member to take my commitment that this matter will be assessed. We will share that information with the opposition critics between now and when the House comes back and see if there is any way that it can be addressed if the assessment shows that it needs to be."

I have not heard from the minister. The House has now come back and there is still silence on it, so I have put forward what I believe is a reasonable amendment to resolve this issue because the minister simply has not honoured his commitment.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think we did explain to the critic why it could not be included, so we can continue to debate this, but I want to make one point. The member did have the opportunity of participating in the green paper. He did not take up the opportunity. Even the critic for the official opposition came to some of the hearings: the one in Etobicoke, the one in Toronto. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin came to the one in Sudbury. There were members from other parties who participated.

Mr Tilson: We are restricted from talking, as it is, and we are now talking about the green paper. This is an amendment with respect to tippage fees, and I have asked the minister to provide this information. He simply will not provide it, so I believe the amendment is in order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The critic for the third party did raise the issue about their participation in the green paper. I am simply responding to it, and I can understand why he is so sensitive about it. He has not come up with one positive alternative suggestion of how to deal with rent control during the whole period. All he has said is, "Kill rent control and leave tenants unprotected."

The Chair: Order, please. The debate is on the amendment of Mr Tilson.

Mr Stockwell: It is just slightly more complicated.

The Chair: Order. Will the member for Etobicoke West take his seat? Thank you. We are debating the amendment of Mr Tilson.

Hon Mr Cooke: I have nothing to say. I think the point has been made. He did not want to participate in the green paper discussion.

Mr Tilson: I will be looking forward to debating the green paper. It was made quite clear by the minister's staff that I would not be able to speak at the hearings. I would have gladly come and talked about this subject with respect to the garbage tippage fees. I was not allowed to do that. It was made clear I could go to some of the hearings -- not all of the hearings, but some of the hearings -- but I was not allowed to speak. I was not allowed to put forward this type of comment with respect to criticism of what he is doing.

When you are not allowed to speak, why would you even bother going? In fact, I suggested that perhaps the member for Eglinton and I have cardboard pictures taken of us and that we send them off to these so-called hearings that the Minister of Housing has had. That would be our participation, because that is really all we are going to be allowed to do, and that is all we are being allowed to do in these whole proceedings. It is a sham, and he is not even allowing us to proceed with these other amendments.

Hon Mr Cooke: I have to respond to that. There have been accusations made that I think are inappropriate.

The Chair: Order. There was an amendment that was introduced and the debate is to be on the amendment. There is no point in trying to discuss something else. It is on the amendment. If you want me to read the amendment -- if you want to vote on it, I will do so now. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: The member for Eglinton I believe has an amendment.

Ms Poole: Yes, I do have an amendment to Bill 4.

The Chair: Ms Poole moves that subsection 100e(2) of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(f) subject to the conditions set out in subsections (8a), (8b) and (8c), capital expenditures that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary to ensure the structural soundness of the residential complex or the health or safety of the tenants or that are supported by consent in writing of at least two thirds of the tenants of the residential complex;"

1620

Ms Poole: This amendment is one of vital concern to the Liberal caucus. It concerns capital expenditures, major repairs, major renovations and major replacements.

The minister had put forth the concern at the time of the introduction of Bill 4 about outrageous rent increases and about luxury renovations. Quite frankly, we agreed with him in the Liberal caucus, and that is why we supported him on second reading of Bill 4. However, it was our opinion that there was a serious flaw in Bill 4 in that capital expenditures were not dealt with. I am not talking about luxury repairs. I am not talking about marble foyers. I am talking about necessary repairs. I know the minister has said that not much can happen in two years, so that major repairs can wait until the long-term legislation, but the minister is failing to take into account the state of our aging housing stock. I had earlier given the House statistics as to the age of our housing stock, and they are quite revealing. I will just refresh the memories of members of the House.

Eighty per cent of our housing stock is at least 15 years old, almost 63% is over 20 years old, 37% is over 30 years old, and almost 9% is over 70 years old. These statistics are quite frightening, because it is quite obvious that we need repairs to our buildings. After a certain period of time cement corrodes, electrical works fail, water penetrates caulking and roofing, balconies corrode, elevators break down, plumbing needs to be replaced, and parking garages disintegrate from the salt corrosion.

Some people have advanced the theory that it is improper maintenance which results in these items happening, but I would say to you, Mr Chair, that this is absolutely not true. It is obvious that all of these things have life expectancies. There are only so many times you can repair a roof before it has to be replaced.

We had an excellent presentation during Bill 4 from the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario. They said: "I hope as well you understand clearly...that this is not an issue of routine maintenance. No amount of minor maintenance, as opposed to rehabilitation, could deal with this phenomenon." They are talking about the disintegration of underground parking garages. "Waterproofing, without major restoration, only prevents the ingress of more salt and water, but does nothing to restore the integrity of the structure.

"Because the salt-induced deterioration was not foreseen until the mid-1980s, the concrete in almost all garages contains salt and requires continuous periodic restoration or complete replacement." They have warned about the consequences of not dealing with this matter. They have said: "I want to make it clear that we are not here to argue for landlords' interests or for tenants' rights or to advise you on the appropriate level of rent increases in the province. Rather, we are here to advise you of the effects of Bill 4, not just on our membership but on tenants and their safety.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Bill 4 is not in the public interest. Inadvertently it imposes a risk to public safety, and even though the legislation is temporary, its effects will not be temporary. Let me be clear: Unless this legislation is changed, people will be put at risk."

That is one of the primary reasons we worded this amendment as we did. First of all, the repairs have to be necessary. They have to be in effect when the structural soundness of the building or the health or safety of the tenants is in jeopardy. That is what they are talking about at the Concrete Restoration Association when they talk about the safety of the tenants. Yet there is no provision for capital repairs in Bill 4, none whatsoever.

I should make a reference to the three conditions that are mentioned in this amendment. Because of a recommendation by legislative counsel, we have actually put them in a later section, but they say, first of all, that the minister can disallow all or any part of capital expenditures if in his or her opinion they were required as the result of ongoing deliberate neglect of maintenance and repair of the residential complex. Second, the minister shall consider evidence submitted as to the quality and value for money of the repair, replacement or renovation when determining the amount of the increase under this amendment. Third -- and this is a very important component which addresses the minister's concerns that rents should be affordable -- the maximum amount the minister may allow in a determination under this amendment is 5% of the gross potential rent.

The reason I read these out now is that although this amendment will be moved at a later date, I do not intend to debate it at that time. It meshes with the amendment that we are proposing where we are looking at the structural integrity of the building. We are looking at the health and safety of the tenants. We are looking at consent of two thirds of the tenants in the building, and we are looking at quality of the repair. We are looking at neglect to the building and we are looking at a cap to protect tenants against the outrageous rent increases which the minister has railed against in this House. So it is a very, very reasonable approach that we have taken.

The minister has said, "Well, we don't need this in this interim bill," that we can wait for the long-term legislation. But I say to members that it is not that simple. Small repairs will become large repairs. Things that need to be fixed now may well never be fixed if the landlord decides that he or she does not like the new legislation. We also have the case of buildings where the construction is half finished; it was half finished at the time that Bill 4 was introduced and the construction has not progressed since that date. These tenants will be forced to live in these conditions until such time as the minister in his long-term legislation makes a provision for capital. I really do not think that is right. I do not think that is fair and I do not think that is tenant protection.

I must say that one of the reasons I put forward this amendment is that capital repairs have been a long-standing concern of mine. In fact, it was a building in my riding, 221 Balliol, which had a successful injunction, at least at the first level, to stop construction in their building. The concerns of the 221 Balliol tenants were that, first of all, the repairs were not necessary. They replaced perfectly good counters. The counters they replaced were absolutely gorgeous. I took some pictures; I wish I had brought them today. The counters were wonderful, solid oak. You know, I would die to have them in my own kitchen, but they replaced them with shoddy workmanship, counters where the doors did not match. Tenants endured several years of this construction and these renovations. The quality was very poor and yet the items were incredibly expensive.

The tenants alleged that the middleman was actually a close contact, not an arm's-length contact, of the landlord. That is why carpets came from Sweden, that is why the windows came from Germany, and that is why the cost of everything they put in was double what members and I wanted to see in the buildings. Not only that, but the quality was poor.

So as members can see, the 221 Balliol case very strongly influenced the provisions that I put into this amendment, because I totally sympathize with tenants who have a huge rent increase. There are many tenants who cannot afford those rent increases and there should be limits. But surely the minister can see that, as a temporary measure at least, this amendment makes sense.

It is modest. It is not saying a landlord can put in $10 million worth of repairs. It is saying that the most necessary repairs should be done and that it is the minister's definition of necessary that counts, not the landlord's. It is saying that tenants are protected by the cap, by the quality provision, by the fact that there cannot be deliberate, ongoing neglect by the landlord just so that he gets to put in capital expenses.

I think those are all very worthy aspects of tenant protection which the NDP government should be able to support. Ironically, the minister in his opening address on Bill 4 said one of the purposes of the bill was to bring stability to the housing industry. We have tenants living in half-finished construction, we have necessary work being put on hold, we have renovators closing up shop. We have hundreds and thousands of workers who are unemployed directly because of Bill 4: not because of the recession, not because of the time of year, but directly because of Bill 4. We have investors saying that they no longer trust the government of Ontario. We have antagonism and hostility between landlords and tenants such as I have never seen in all the time that I have been working with tenants. This is stability?

1630

The amendment we have proposed would bring a sense of stability back into the housing market. It would provide work for those renovators and trades who are suddenly thrown out of work. It would provide protection for the tenants who want to have repairs done in their building. I can assure the members, if they think that there are going to be capital repairs done, if they even think there is going to be maintenance done for the duration of Bill 4, whether it be one year or two years, they are sadly mistaken. It is just not going to happen.

The effect on the renovations and trades has been absolutely devastating. I think some of the members may have looked out their window at the renovators and tradespeople when they protested last week. I sincerely hope of the members in this House that that is all they did from the second-storey windows. One thing they have to recognize is that these people have been forgotten. They have been told their firm has gone out of business. They have been told they have lost jobs because there is no provision for capital repair in Bill 4. But they have also been told: "That's tough. Too bad. Wait till the long-term legislation." These jobs are not going to come back. That is the real problem. You just cannot close and open up businesses like you close and open a box of crackers. They are closed. They are bankrupt. They have no business. Companies such as Wind-O-Mart Ltd are going to be and are in very dire straits. They cannot wait for any relief that may be in the long-term legislation.

So I say to the members from a tenant protection angle, from an investment angle, from a business angle, whatever angle the members want to look at, that there must be a provision for capital repairs, with limitations obviously, in this bill.

Just to conclude my comments at this time, I would like to quote from an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator in the latter part of March. The editorial says:

"Bill 4 now before the Legislature has two serious flaws. It doesn't allow for capital improvements to be passed on to tenants if they exceed approved rent increases, and it would effectively reverse rent hikes that had previously been approved. Mr Cooke has rightly maintained that landlords shouldn't be allowed to pass on the cost of expensive renovations such as marble floors, mirrored lobbies and fancy chandeliers. But his approach is too narrow. In many cases capital improvements are necessary and far from luxurious -- concrete repairs to balconies and garages, plumbing, roof repairs and so on.

"It was disappointing that the NDP used its majority in committee to reject a number of constructive Liberal amendments. The Liberals suggested, among other things, that landlords be entitled to pass on capital costs, but subject to 5% of the guideline if the work was needed to ensure the structural soundness of the building, protect tenants' health and safety or where most tenants agree."

And the final conclusion? The final conclusion was that unless the government undertakes some necessary repairs to Bill 4, its credibility in drafting a workable, evenhanded rent control system will be suspect. That is the kind of atmosphere that the government has created in Ontario today, the attitude of hostility and antagonism between the parties, so that it is going to be extremely difficult to get tenants and landlords to work together on a constructive solution in the long-term legislation.

That certainly concludes any preliminary remarks I have on capital repairs, but it would only enhance the minister's credibility in my eyes if he now said, "We have listened, we have heard, we have paid attention, and we think that the people of Ontario have raised some very valid concerns about capital major repairs and improvements." It would enhance the minister immeasurably in my eyes if he would consider an amendment to Bill 4 to make sure that the tenants of this province are protected, that capital repairs are done and that the stability in the housing industry is vastly improved.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to echo the remarks made by our Housing critic, the member for Eglinton, whom I would like to compliment at this time for the excellent job that she has done on this piece of legislation and the criticisms that she has made, which I believe are not only valid but also very much in the interests of tenants in this province.

I had the privilege of serving on the legislative committee which was studying Bill 51, which is the existing system for rent review and rent regulation in this province. Over and over again, tenants came before that committee to say: "We want our buildings maintained. We want to make sure that repairs are done. We want value for our money." They would say, "We are prepared to pay a little bit more to ensure that we have a clean and a decent place to live."

Tenants came before that committee, and the minister knows because he was there, saying that they were very concerned about building maintenance. That was the top priority. They wanted an incentive in the rent review legislation that would ensure that their buildings were well maintained.

One of the major flaws of this piece of legislation we are debating today is that not only is there no incentive to maintain the buildings, not only is there no incentive to look at the health and safety issues that tenants are so concerned about, but the incentive in this bill has been to stop all building maintenance in the province, to stop all major and minor repairs within the rental accommodations in this province. My tenants are concerned not only for today but for tomorrow. They are concerned because so many of the buildings are older and getting even older and are in need of these repairs, and this legislation has created a situation where all building maintenance has stopped and tenants have been placed in jeopardy.

Hon Mr Cooke: That is not true.

Mrs Caplan: The minister says that is not true. He knows that is true. He has heard that from tenants. He has heard that from tenant associations. He has heard that from tenant activists.

I can say to the minister, this bill has created chaos. This bill has frozen out tenants who wanted to have their buildings properly maintained, frozen out tenants who wanted to be able to sit down and to discuss with their landlords in advance what kind of proposals and what kind of building maintenance should be done to properly maintain those buildings.

The amendment that has been put forward by our caucus, by the member for Eglinton, the Housing critic for our party, I believe is in the tenants' interests. It is fair and it is reasonable and it is an amendment that would protect the interests of tenants in this province not only in the short term but in the medium and longer term as well.

I predict that the new legislation that the minister will be tabling in this House, hopefully in the very near future, will have to contain a provision for capital for maintenance so that buildings will be properly maintained, because he knows that is in the interests of tenants. He knows that it is important that buildings not fall down around tenants; he knows it is important that where you have salt corrosion in underground parking garages that that must be properly maintained, and he knows that tenants care about their health and their safety and that they want a clean and decent place to live.

I am very disappointed that this minister has not been sensitive to the health and safety needs of tenants. He has not been sensitive to the realities in Ontario today which are that buildings are falling apart and that tenants are in a situation where they are not having their buildings properly maintained.

As I conclude the discussion, I would urge the minister -- he still has an opportunity, as we are in clause-by-clause today -- to reconsider his position on the very sensible, reasonable and sensitive amendment by the member for Eglinton. I hope that he will consider that, because it is in the interests of tenants in this province, and it is in his interests as Minister of Housing to have the kind of housing policy that will bring about well-maintained buildings in this province.

1640

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to very briefly respond to the member for Oriole and to say that just because she says something is true does not mean it is true. Just because she says that all capital expenditures have stopped in this province does not mean that is the case, and it is not the case. She knows as well as I do that the maximum that was spent under Bill 51, under her legislation, and passed through in the rent review system in any given year was $122 million. There was a lot more money spent than that on capital in the province.

Most landlords in the province understand something that she does not understand, that her Housing critic does not understand, and I would expect that the Conservatives would not understand, but I am surprised at the Liberals. Rent is paid in this province for a particular reason. There is $8-billion worth of rent collected in this province and it is our expectation, and I think it is a realistic expectation, that some of that rent should be going to keep up the housing stock in this province.

The position the Conservatives have always taken is -- and at least their position is clear; I do not agree with it, but it is clear -- any cent of capital that is spent in the province should be passed through 100% to the tenants. That is the position the Conservatives have taken, that landlords should not have to spend a penny in capital, that it should all be recovered from the tenants of this province.

I do not share that point of view. Their position is clear. That is not our position. Obviously, that is now the position of the Liberal Party, based on the position that the member for Oriole has just enunciated, that all capital, as she says, is now stopped because of Bill 4 and that no landlord will or should be spending capital. That is not a position that I share, and I am very saddened by the position that the Liberal Party has taken on this issue.

The Liberal Housing critic has -- I am not entirely sure what her position is, because on second reading she voted in favour of the bill and then for four months she spoke against it. I am not sure what position she really takes on this legislation, other than that she has speeches that she can send to landlords and she has speeches she can send to tenants. It is kind of what I was used to when I was first elected in 1977. We used to always call the Liberal caucus the flip-flop caucus and that is the kind of position the Housing critic is taking now, trying to sit on the fence and take the side of everybody. But I am telling her, it does not work.

People understand that the Liberals have sold out their principles on this. They are taking entirely the landlord's side when it comes to capital, and they would pass through all of the capital; any cent of capital that a landlord spends, they would pass through. That is obviously the position they are taking, based on what the member for Oriole just said two minutes ago, and I am very disappointed by that position.

Mrs Caplan: At the beginning of the minister's remarks he said, "Just because you say it is so does not make it so," and I would suggest that he read Hansard, because in fact his remarks have given new meaning to that phrase. He knows full well that on the record there is very clearly enunciated policy in this province that was brought forward by the previous government when it looked at rent regulation.

As it went through that committee process -- and I was a member of that committee and I referred to it in my opening remarks -- we always said that the desire was to come to a balance of the needs of the tenants for a clean and decent place to live and a balance for tenants to have not an unjustifiable rental increase. We brought together landlords and tenants, and the legislation that is in place today is a result of the efforts of those individuals who drafted that legislation.

The minister knows full well that this piece of legislation not only trashes the efforts of those people, not only trashes the record of his party during the last election when it made a very simplistic promise to people in this province, a promise that it has not fulfilled or kept; at the same time, when it has acknowledged very clearly that there is a need for a comprehensive housing policy and a comprehensive housing strategy, this bill not only does not do that, this bill penalizes those tenants who had faith and confidence in this minister and in his party, which told them one thing during the election campaign and brought them something very different following the campaign as part of this piece of legislation.

He knows as well that it has always been the position of this party that tenants' rights and tenants' interests, as I believe have been articulated extremely well by my colleague the member for Eglinton over the course of many months as this bill has been scrutinized -- and as we have listened to the tenants in this province and as we have listened to the landlords in this province and as we have seen the result, which is that everything has stopped, everything has come to a complete stop. I can say to him that needed major capital work has come to a complete halt in this province because of his housing policy, or lack thereof

Hon Mr Cooke: That is not true.

Mrs Caplan: Simply because the minister protests does not mean it is not true. It is true. To have him stand on his feet in response to my comments and impute motive, which we all know in this House is one of the tactics that he used to use in opposition, sounds more and more like he is so defensive about this policy because he knows that it is bad policy.

I can say to him that our position is one which is not only reasonable and balanced and fair, because we care about the tenants of this province. We know that they want a clean and decent place to live, and as we move forward in the debate on housing policy we ask this minister to consider an amendment that would consider the health and safety interests of those tenants. He has categorically refused to do so. On behalf of the residents of Oriole I must express my deep regret that this minister is so callous and unfeeling about the interests of my constituents.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I get a chance to briefly respond.

The First Deputy Chair: Yes, it is just that I also like to look around and give everyone a chance. Minister, you are next.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am very interested and I think we should continue to discuss this matter with the member for Oriole, because as the time clicks on this afternoon the Liberal Party position continues to change. The critic for the Liberal Party says that the old Liberal rent review legislation under Bill 51 was not adequate, it needed changes, tenants were not adequately protected; the member for Oriole says that Bill 51 was a great piece of legislation that nobody should touch.

We should continue to discuss this because maybe by the time quarter to 6 comes, we will be able to figure out what the Liberal position is on rent review in this province. That in itself would be a major accomplishment for the Legislature, if we could figure out where the Liberals stood on protection of tenants in this province. It would be very, very interesting.

All of a sudden, when the member for Oriole gets very defensive about this issue and tries to lay out what the Liberal position is, or at least her position or at least the Liberal caucus position at 10 to 5 this afternoon -- who knows what it will be at 5 or 5:10 or 5:15 -- she forgets the history of this legislation and Bill 51 and how weak it was and how when tenants in this province were asking that changes take place, the former Minister of Housing, Mr Sweeney, would not even go to tenants' meetings. He would not go face tenants in this province. He sent the member for Eglinton, he sent the former member for downtown Toronto. The Minister of Housing refused to go talk to tenants. In this government, we go talk to people. We have had a consultation process and we are delivering on our commitment to improve protection for tenants.

1650

Again, I think it would be very interesting to continue having the critic for the Liberal Party and then the member for Oriole speak this afternoon, because maybe by the end of the afternoon we will be able to narrow down what the position of the Liberal Party is. The member for Oriole is leaving, so now we will listen to the Housing critic. Maybe the Housing critic can set the record straight and correct the member for Oriole.

Ms Poole: I would be delighted to set the record straight. It is unfortunate that the minister cannot seem to either listen or comprehend our position. It has been consistent since day one. Everybody else understands it except the minister, who refuses to try to understand it. From day one we said we had no problem with supporting the principle of getting rid of the outrageous rent increases, getting rid of the luxury rent increases, the luxury capital repairs, but we said we had serious concerns with this bill.

What I resent more than anything, and I resent it as a member, is that we have tried to make this legislation work. It could only have looked good for the minister if he had tried to make this legislation work. Instead, he has people out there demonstrating, picketing, calling, writing, and yet he made absolutely no effort to consider our substantive amendments.

I just cannot believe that the minister said this amendment on capital is pro-landlord. Does he think that the landlords would like a cap on capital repairs? No. Does he think they want deliberate ongoing neglect involved? No. Does he think they want quality of the repair involved? No. Does he think they want any of the provisions I have put in? That is not what they want on capital. They want to be able to spend capital as they choose, but I have chosen something deliberately modest that would continue to protect tenants and at the same time protect our housing stock.

So I resent that the minister says it is pro-landlord, particularly ironic in light of the fact that the minister has included what amounts to my amendment as one of the options in the green paper for the long term. If it is pro landlord, what is he doing putting it in the long-term paper? I cannot conceive how the minister can actually make that accusation.

We have tried to co-operate and use goodwill in this House, but it is obvious to me that I have been somewhat naive in thinking this minister and this government were willing to listen, willing to look at the broad picture and willing to bring in some reasonable amendments. I am very sad and disappointed. I think it is a sad day for Ontario.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the comments of the Housing critic for the Liberal Party, but she has not focused in on what the position of the Liberal Party is. On second reading they voted in favour of Bill 4, and half of the speech that the Housing critic gave, was in favour of strict rent control and the second half was very critical of Bill 4. It was a well-constructed speech, because it could be cut in half and go to two different mailing lists.

That is the kind of position that the Liberal Party has taken on this legislation. They have said one thing to the landlords' groups and another thing to the tenants' groups and they do not think that anyone is listening. People are listening. They see that the Liberals are mixed up on this. They vote in favour of Bill 4 in principle. I mean, in the parliamentary system, Bill 4 had in it a principle of, sure, tenant protection, but it was not that wishy-washy. The principle, the guts of the bill, is a moratorium for a two- year period, a moratorium that did not have a whole bunch of loopholes and exceptions to it. That was the purpose of Bill 4 and the member knew it was the purpose of Bill 4, but the member decided to take a very political position and sit on the fence on it.

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Would the member for Downsview refrain from joining in debate until he is recognized. Thank you.

Hon Mr Cooke: The Liberal caucus decided to take a very political position on it. They wanted to say yes to tenants and yes to landlords. They wanted to send out that double message. It has not worked. It has caught up with them. Now we are coming to third reading on Monday. We will see where they stand on third reading on Monday. I strongly suspect that they will be voting against it. That way they can send out the voting record on second reading to tenants and they can send out the voting record on third reading to landlords. They can have it both ways, just as the Liberal Party has tried to have it for years.

Mr Sola: A few moments ago, the minister said that Bill 4 did not kill the incentive to maintain buildings or to invest in capital improvements. If he truly believes that, I would like to ask the minister, if Bill 4 did not kill the incentive to invest in capital improvements, why did he put in measures to provide public funding for capital improvements?

Up to the passage of Bill 4, the landlords themselves provided the funding to do their own capital improvements. He makes Bill 4 retroactive, all renovation dies, comes to a sudden halt, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of people laid off and the minister has the gall to say in this House that his bill did not kill the initiative of the private investors in this province. Yet he comes up with public money to do the thing that private money was doing before his bill. How does he explain that?

Hon Mr Cooke: If you are referring to the low-rise rehabilitation program, that program was initiated by your government and there was $80 million put into the low- rise rehab program by your government. Is that what you are referring to, the low-rise rehab program with public money --

The First Deputy Chair: Minister, I would remind you that you should direct your remarks through the Chair.

Hon Mr Cooke: Okay, I am sorry. In any case, I totally disagree with the position taken by the Liberal Party. The fact of the matter is that there still is capital being invested in apartment buildings. Most landlords in this province take the position that the $8 billion that is paid annually in rent is supposed to provide for maintenance, and maintenance includes capital reinvestment in buildings.

The Liberal caucus will allow the landlords, under the position that it has taken, to get completely off the hook and not be responsible for capital renovations in apartment buildings. I fundamentally differ with that point of view. That is just the way it is. I fundamentally, philosophically disagree with the position that the Liberal Party is taking today now at 4:57. We will see what they say in five minutes. Maybe it will be a position that we can agree with in five minutes.

Mr Perruzza: What's their position? I want to know what their position is.

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Downsview is reminded that if he wishes to partake in this debate, he is certainly welcome to stand and be recognized. The member for Durham Centre.

Mr White: I would like to make a simple couple of points. Earlier we heard the deft repetition of the same, sodden statement that there was no further capital investment. The more often one repeats the same statement, the more it takes on a certain ingenuous reality in this House, but nowhere else.

I know in an apartment building where I have a flat there are capital investments. This is not too terribly far away from here, and yet somehow the same misstatement can occur. I am sure that the member for Oriole, who usually has a large presence in the House, has simply not researched the issue.

Mr Turnbull: You obviously haven't. You're talking drivel.

Mr White: I have, sir.

An hon member: Is she in her chair, the member for Oriole?

Mr White: I cannot speak to a member's action.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Durham Centre is reminded to direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr White: Thank you, Madam Chair. I should not allow those distractions --

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Downsview is reminded once more that if he wishes to take part in debate, he may stand and be recognized.

Mr White: I want to speak first about that repetition of an inaccuracy, but the other concern which the minister mentioned was the flip-flops from the ancien régime. We know what costs investment flips have had for the tenants of this province, and at that point, a year ago, 18 months ago, eight months ago, the Liberals were all in favour of being as supportive as they could be of profits.

1700

Mr B. Murdoch: Profits, oh.

Mr Turnbull: Oh, that's awful. Profits -- bad word.

Mr White: Indeed. During the election campaign, I had the opportunity of visiting a seniors' residence in my riding, and that residence -- two buildings, some six storeys each, in which some hundreds of seniors lived -- had been flipped on several occasions and the cost of those flips went directly to those seniors. These were people on limited incomes, and I was appalled at the way in which a new owner could translate the costs of his investments on to the backs of seniors. He knew what building he was buying. He knew who the tenants were. He also knew that he could exact his costs from those people, who had such limited income, and we had people in those buildings on fixed incomes.

Mr Stockwell: Where?

Mr White: Whitby. My apologies, Madam Chair. I should not allow myself to be distracted.

In those buildings, people were faced with retroactive rent increases of $1,300 or $1,400, people into their 90s, and these people spoke to me. They had previously spoken to their member, who was a member of l'ancien régime, and he very clearly stated that there was a need for profits, despite the incredible injustice which he saw in that building.

I was moved by their plight, and I spoke with all of them. We had a meeting in their building and the hall was overflowing. People were standing out into the hallways. They asked me, what would I do and what was the issue? I explained to them why this was happening to them, and one of the people there said, "Mr White, you're making a political statement," and I said: "Yes, I am. It is a political issue."

I am glad to see that our Minister of Housing so early introduced legislation to deal with their concerns and their complaints and that we will have a long-term address to the whole issue of rental properties that will address their needs so that they can live in their old age in security. It is highly improper in our society to put the elderly in a place of insecurity.

When the minister was talking about flip-flops, I think it is really remarkable. Certainly the member of the ancien régime I was faced with last summer was in strong defence of those landlords' rights to exact their capital expansion from those seniors, and the quality of their maintenance, the amount of investment in maintenance, was decreasing, not increasing, even though they were being charged more for those services. I think that it is remarkable. When we talk about apartment flips, we should talk about Liberal flip-flops, that they change from one moment to another. Where are they from one day to the next? I think that those are a significant force. I think that the people of this province know where we stand, and it is with credit.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: May I remind the members that the member for Mississauga East is standing patiently, waiting for you to settle down so he may begin.

Mr Sola: I have to respond to the latest allegation of the imaginary nature of job loss and of the non-existent loss of investment in this province, because if that were the case, my colleague from Mississauga West would not have been forced yesterday to pose an embarrassing question to the Premier about the situation of a member, an alleged member of the Premier's staff --

An hon member: Alleged is just it.

Mr Sola: That is right, but it was put in writing of an alleged member mooning people who were making protests about non-existent losses of jobs and investment. Now, is that the answer that they are going to give to the allegation that was raised in the House yesterday? If the job losses were imaginary, if the investment was imaginary, why would people be coming here with picket signs and hanging the minister in effigy and burning him in effigy and then in response getting the act that the member for Mississauga West described yesterday in question period? I would like the member to answer that.

The First Deputy Chair: Further debate? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

The motion will be deferred until following routine proceedings on Monday.

Vote stacked.

Mr Tilson: I have a further amendment, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Tilson moves that subsection 100e(2) of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:

"(f) any capital expenditures that in the opinion of the minister are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the residential complex including,

"(i) repairing or replacing delaminated concrete and steel in an underground parking garage,

"(ii) replacing a roof,

"(iii) converting the residential complex from galvanized to copper plumbing and replacing boilers,

"(iv) repairing cladding on the residential complex,

"(v) making repairs necessary to protect the safety of tenants, and

"(vi) carrying out energy conservation measures required by the Ministry of Energy;

"(g) any additional capital expenditure if at the time of contracting for that expenditure 75% of the tenants whose rent would be affected by that expenditure have consented to it in writing."

Mr Tilson: The intent of this amendment is to provide a minimum list of structural renovation and repair work that should be allowed to continue to pass through the system during the moratorium period, because clearly Bill 4 does not allow for any of that.

I believe that if you look at the items that I have just read to the committee, surely none of these items would be considered the luxury items that the Minister of Housing has referred to in the past. These are, I would submit, essential repairs that are needed to maintain the structural integrity of the buildings, the housing stock. During the committee hearings, the Ministry of Housing tabled a report that indicated that $7 billion in 1999 dollars would be required to maintain the province's housing stock over the next 20 years. Given that figure, the Minister of Housing knows full well that he will have to make a provision for capital in the permanent legislation.

1710

We have argued in our party that if capital is a problem today, it should be addressed in Bill 4 and not in some vague, distant time down in the future. I have submitted in the past that 80% of Ontario's housing stock was constructed prior to 1975 and all of that, through testimony we have heard at the hearings and submissions we have made in this House, is in need of repair today. If Bill 4 is passed in its present form, all of those repairs that are continually needed over time will have to wait until the moratorium period expires.

With respect to clause (g), which I have read to the committee, the intent of this clause is to allow landlords and tenants to work together. I referred in my comments yesterday to the need for partnership that this bill has done away with and I submit that clause (g) would allow the landlords and tenants to work together to agree on a capital expenditure. The democracy clause, as we call it, would help eliminate the adversarial relationship that Bill 4 has caused through the last number of months and indeed the adversarial process that perhaps had started with the implementation of Bill 51.

The Bretton Place Tenants' Association spoke out against Bill 4. They felt the bill was unfair and would jeopardize the good working relationship they had with their landlord. They were quite clear on that. I spent some time during my remarks yesterday and the day before commenting on the need to pursue the issue of repairs during the moratorium period, because that is not being done. For the Minister of Housing to stand up today and say that there are no facts presented saying that jobs will be lost and that work is being stopped, that capital expenditures are being stopped, simply is not true.

The member for Downsview has mentioned reading letters into the record. I did that for a very good reason, to illustrate examples and facts that were being presented by landlords and construction people to show that work has stopped, that jobs are being lost, and obviously that has gone unheard. We believe that this amendment, which will not entirely solve the situation and is made in the spirit of compromise, will alleviate at least some of the situations that have been referred to by our party and by members of the Liberal Party.

I would just like to refute the comments made by the Minister of Housing today that we have no facts presented, that jobs are being lost and that work has stopped. That has been made very clear, and this is just one example by a very reputable group called the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario, which came to our committee. They said they did not represent the landlords and they did not represent the tenants. What they represented was the factor of safety.

They talked about the 80% of the buildings of this province that were built prior to 1975 and the need for repair. They said, "Bill 4 is not in the public interest," and I concur with that. I believe it has been inadvertent, which is the reason for this amendment, to solve that inadvertency that has been put forward by the government. "Inadvertently, it imposes a risk to public safety. And even though the legislation is temporary, its effects will not be temporary." It will go beyond the moratorium period. They go into some detail of that, and I will refer to that in a few moments.

They say, "Most deterioration of concrete arises from rapid rusting of the reinforcing steel in the concrete. This is caused by the progressive accumulation of salt in the concrete itself." They go on to say that if these capital expenditures are not made, these capital improvements are not made, even during the moratorium period, these buildings will have a problem in safety. These individuals certainly are not going to be allowed, because of Bill 4, to relieve that safety problem.

They say specifically:

"No amount of major maintenance, as opposed to rehabilitation, could deal with this phenomenon. Waterproofing, without major restoration, only prevents the ingress of more salt and water but does nothing to restore the integrity of the structure.

"Because the salt-induced deterioration was not foreseen until the mid-1980s, the concrete in almost all garages contains salt and requires continuous periodic restoration or complete replacement. As well, because salt is not consumed in the corrosion process, the problem is and will remain with us throughout the service life of the building unless complete replacement occurs."

That is the problem. Because of Bill 4 this work is not being done. It is being stopped. This report is a fact and, if members have not read it, I will refer to the fact that it was an exhibit filed on 12 February 1991. It can be made available to them by any member of the government, any members who sat on that committee.

They specifically state:

"It is necessary work that must be carried out in the interest of public safety, for if it is not, garages will deteriorate and collapse. In severe situations where garages form the substructure of an apartment building, entire buildings could collapse.

"I hasten to add that to my knowledge no garages have collapsed in Ontario which have in turn caused a building to collapse. We don't want to be alarmists about this situation, but we are concerned that Bill 4 may have a detrimental effect in this regard."

That is one factor that this government has ignored, the whole issue of safety. Specifically, they talk about jobs that have been cancelled. The minister has said today that there is no evidence of jobs being cancelled. Here is a report that says the jobs are being cancelled. They go on to say why Bill 4, which is supposed to be only a temporary measure, will in fact bring lasting harm to their industry and to tenants.

"Within days of the announcement of this bill, over 42 major structural concrete restoration projects were cancelled by building owners and managers. As a consequence, 414 jobs have been lost.

"Again, I want to stress to the committee that I am not engaging in idle rhetoric. I have read reports of some who have questioned the job loss figures associated with the legislation, saying that the figures were overstated or due to the recession. That simply is not the case. These needed repair jobs were cancelled and these needed jobs were lost as a direct result of Bill 4."

There is one example of facts. There are dozens and dozens of other reports given to us to show that contracts were cancelled that were planned for needed capital improvements to our housing industry, and I challenge the Minister of Housing to refute that.

Mr Callahan: I would like to relate something to the members. I am certainly a tenants person. I believe that tenants in this high cost of housing have to be protected --

Hon Mr Philip: Did you say "tenants person" or "tense person"?

Mr Callahan: We have a landlord speaking to us right now who is probably going to have difficulty in voting on this bill, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Philip: I have always looked out for the tenants. That is more than you have done in your career.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Callahan: But I have to say it is nice to see the member in the House, and before he got involved --

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Brampton South, would you please take your seat. Order. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, would you please refrain from --

Mr Callahan: I had no intentions of being partisan, as the Minister of Housing always accuses me of being, but my ire was upset by the landlord over there, the Minister of Transportation, who probably has more housing units than most of the people in this entire House.

Hon Mr Philip: I created more housing units than the member's government created.

Mr Callahan: The member certainly did, and I wonder how he is going to vote.

1720

Hon Mr Philip: That says something for your housing policy.

The Chair: Order. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, if you want to debate --

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. I would remind the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that if you want to debate, all you have to do is to stand up and I will recognize you. The member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I will try to restrain myself.

I wanted to relate to the House that, as I said before, I am a tenants person. I believe that tenants, particularly in this time of restraint, this time of high cost of housing, have to be protected.

The former Conservative Party brought in rent control. We have now created a system where people do not want high increases. They cannot afford the high increases.

Since we have that system in place, I am in favour of the fact that the tenants should be protected. That part of the bill, in a sense, I can live with. But I find it really difficult to accept the fact that the new NDP government that purports to be terribly democratic, and so many of them over there own rental properties.

Hon Mrs Grier: So many!

Mr Callahan: Well, we have not found out whether the Minister of the Environment has any yet or not.

Hon Mr Philip: Not all of us got our money from our daddy.

Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation is extremely vocal today. I guess he just got his rent rebate or something.

I would like to say that I can speak to members of the personal experience of my mother, who is now 86 years of age. She lived in what in New York was called a rent-controlled building. At that time, the government of the day -- and I cannot remember which government it was -- decided to introduce the exact draconian measures that are being introduced by this Minister of Housing, disallowing any possible repair pass-throughs at all. I can tell members, from personal attendance at that building, that it went from being a very delightful building to one that you could only read about in Bonfire of the Vanities. If members have not read Bonfire of the Vanities, about the south Bronx of the United States, they better read it. I am going to send that to my mother, I say to the Minister of Transportation, and he will be in trouble. She loves to write politicians.

I want to say that the bill itself, in terms of keeping rents at a reasonable rate, particularly in this time of high economic pressures, is very important. It is very important to me personally, and it should be very important to people in this House personally, that with the high cost of housing, our children will have grave difficulty in trying to find a place to live.

As I said to the Minister of Housing -- and he accused me of being political -- as we walk through Toronto and see people sleeping on the streets of this city, it is a direct indictment of the fact that we have failed to try to find a way to deal with the question of housing in this province. Not just in this province but in this country.

I can speak in favour, to a limited degree, of the amendments that are being introduced by the opposition, or the third party at the moment. I far prefer those that were put forward by the critic from this party in terms of trying to accommodate, to have a middle-of-the-road approach. It is really not a different approach. It is a similar approach to that of the former Housing minister, Mr Sweeney, who tried to say that landlords should not be able to introduce maintenance that is not needed, that is just being done for purposes of gouging or increasing the value or the cost to the tenants, but is something that must be necessary. He gave a degree of democratic freedom to them to decide whether they wished to have those improvements made.

I suggest to members that the Minister of Housing may feel that by this bill by eliminating the question of pass-through, it is going to be a great political coup. It will have a temporary degree of relief. Tenants will see that as a panacea, as something that is protecting them, but in the final analysis, when they realize that their buildings have become slums, that many of the needed repairs are not being done, they will then suddenly realize that this particular bill, Bill 4 as it presently stands without amendment, is nothing more than a sheer, nasty, ill-founded political trick, one that promises a whole host of good things for the people of this province and in essence is nothing more than a hot balloon that will soon burst.

I am sure there are many members in the New Democratic Party, and some I know, who are probably feeling very uncomfortable about this whole process, because they are people of good faith; they are people who care about tenants. They see their government trying to ramrod through what is nothing more than a political attempt to gain votes and has nothing to do with caring about individuals. If they cared, they would look at the long-range program. They would look at not today, but four years or five years down the line, at what is going to happen to this building. Because they have in fact taken away from the small landlords -- and there are many of them -- the opportunity to look after their apartments.

I was not on this committee, but I can recall previous committees where we had people who did not take advantage of the rent review process. They in fact charged lower rents to their tenants because they felt they owed them. They cared about people. They cared about people, and I think that their actions in that regard are a demonstration of light-years over the political platitudes that the NDP government is now trying to introduce by sort of concreting over the whole issue.

I would think that the caring people in the NDP caucus would say to the Minister of Housing, "Sorry, it may be a political promise, it may be something that you think is politically sexy, but we are looking at the long-range aspect." That is one of the problems, I think, in politics today, the fact that we do not look at the long-range aspects. It is always the quick fix, the quick gratification, as opposed to what we are doing for the people down the line.

We have had a lot of conversation in this House about Tory-battering, about the Prime Minister and the fact that he entered into a free trade agreement which will destroy this country, and yet this government is doing exactly the same thing in the long range. It is so shortsighted that it is in fact taking this province down the road towards more people being out of housing, more people moving out of dilapidated housing because it is not being repaired by the landlords, more bankruptcies for small landlords, more jobs being lost. Members saw them outside the Legislature. Unfortunately, they left when they got mooned, but members saw them outside the Legislature: workers. This government supposedly supports the workers.

The Chair: Order, please. I do not know that what you are talking about has anything to do with the motion.

Mr Callahan: It has to do with the capital aspect of it.

The Chair: I would ask you to debate --

Mr Callahan: I will return, Mr Chairman. I will talk about capital.

Mr Tilson: I understand you.

Mr Callahan: Does the member understand? The member for Dufferin-Peel says -- well, thank you, Mr Chairman, for bringing me back to the topic.

What this government is doing is for the quick fix, the quick political expediency of capping rents, which I agree with. I do not agree with it voluntarily, but I agree with it because this government and the third party -- the member for Dufferin-Peel will not like that -- set this in place. They have created a comfortable pew, a warmth of the womb for those people who now have a place to live and do not have to live on the streets. We have to continue that, and I favour that. I support that. I think every member of my caucus supports that.

But when they start talking about, "That is it, nothing more, you do not get anything extra," they are in fact creating a scenario that will result in dilapidation, in removal of landlords from the community. This government will actually be decreasing housing as opposed to increasing it. If there is anything we need today, it is increased affordable housing.

1730

Mr Mills: Right on.

Mr Callahan: Right on. The member opposite, whom I have great respect for -- and I cannot remember his riding, has said, "Right on," and I agree with that. He is now being visited by the Minister of Housing, who is going to tell him to cool it. There is a man who is caring. The member for Durham East is caring. Every time we hear him speak in the House he is caring. He understands this issue. He understands that we are looking at the quick fix as opposed to the long-term solution.

If there is one thing that the last election told us, and it told us in spades, it was the fact that the people out there, the people we should be caring about, the people of this community -- and the Minister of Housing should not look at me -- voted definitively in terms of politicians looking at the long-range aspect. I think the minister is making a very grave mistake in just looking at the quick fix.

He has to keep in mind that many of these accommodations, as was described by many of my colleagues, are buildings that perhaps are 10, 15, 20, 30 years of age. If they do not continue to look after them, if they eliminate the potential for doing that and force the small landlords, particularly seniors -- I have heard in this House that on the committee seniors came forward, seniors who invested in these properties.

Seniors are the finest people we will ever have in this country. They care. They are not just interested in the buck because they know that down the line that is not the most important thing. They care about people, they care about housing the young. I am sure that they are excited, or "overwhelmed" perhaps is a better word, by the fact that there are young people in Metro Toronto who are down here living away from their homes, not being able to afford anything, living in hostels.

We are not saying to them: "We're going to create a better environment for you. We're going to create housing that you can afford." We are saying: "You're going to live in dilapidated conditions. We're going to put people out of work." Maybe some of those young people work part- or full-time for repairers; maybe they work part- or full-time for suppliers. They are going to be out of jobs.

The New Democratic Party that supposedly stands for the labour movement and for caring and all that good stuff -- and many of them are now just sort of sitting around and having private conversations because this is really a ho-hum issue. It is not important. The member for Durham East is listening, I am glad to see, but many of the members of the government, who I would think would be sitting on the edges of their chairs listening to this debate, are just wandering around doing nothing, having private stories and jokes. I find that really bothers me. That is not political stuff. It bothers me that the most critical issue, housing, which is --

The Chair: Order, please. If you want to hold conversations, please hold them outside the House. I can hardly hear what goes on. Thank you. Would the member for Downsview take his seat, please? The member for Durham Centre, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, would you please take your seats? Thank you.

Mr Callahan: Thank you very much for calling the members to order.

The Chair: Please debate the motion.

Mr Callahan: I think that capital is such an important aspect that we have to stay on the topic, and I really appreciate your calling the members of the government back to order. As I say, they find this may be boring, that members of the opposition would try to discuss some of the major social issues of this time.

The Minister of Housing says -- and I guess we have to take him at his word, and I do because all members of this House are honourable people -- on his green paper that he will address this issue at some point down the line, but it is kind of like someone coming up to you and saying: "Trust me. If you vote for this, I will enlarge the whole scenario afterwards. Trust me." As I say, because he is an honourable member of the Legislature, I do trust him.

But I can assure members that I, my colleagues of the official opposition and, I am sure, the third party, if that minister, when that green paper has been discussed, comes back with nothing and says: "Aha, I gotcha, you voted for or against the capitation of rents. There is going to be no further bill. That is it. We've got our bill to go to the people on the next occasion and put everybody down" -- if the minister does that, he can be sure that he will --

Hon Mr Cooke: Do not be so silly. The member has not even read the bill. It expires in two years.

Mr Callahan: He is saying, "Do not be so silly." Why is the minister saying it is silly?

The Chair: Order.

Mr Callahan: Sorry, Mr Chair. All right, I am just saying in finality, and I am going to close with this --

Mr O'Connor: Good.

Mr Callahan: Somebody said, "Good." All right, it is very light-hearted over there. They think this. But when this comes to the floor of this House, if the minister does not stay to his word, he can be sure that it will be read back to him from Hansard what I have said and what others have said in terms of the trust we put in him that the matter will be dealt with down the line.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to just very briefly respond to the member. I think my colleagues in the government caucus will understand exactly what I was talking about a few minutes ago, now that they have heard another member of the Liberal caucus. Members would almost think from the way the member who just spoke has spoken for the last few minutes that they voted against Bill 4 on second reading, but they voted in favour of it. In fact, that member voted in favour of it.

Talk about the tradition of the Liberal Party. Obviously the tradition of the Liberal Party is coming home to roost. They want to have it both ways. They always have wanted to have it both ways. They have absolutely no principle when it comes to an issue as fundamental as tenants' rights.

Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: The Minister of Housing has been in this House long enough to realize that on second reading, in order to get the matter to committee, in order to deal with it by way of amendment, it is not untraditional for the party to vote for it. That docs not necessarily mean that they agree with it, and he knows it. He should not be telling the people of this province things that he knows are untrue.

The Chair: Order, please. Would you please retract that word "untrue"? It leads to believe that you are saying something else.

Mr Callahan: I will not retract it, because the Minister of Housing knows exactly what the issue is and he knows exactly what he is saying is untrue.

The Chair: I will ask you again, please, to answer my request.

Mr Callahan: He is at least prevaricating.

The Chair: I have asked you to withdraw the word. You say that the minister -- I do not have to repeat. You know what I am saying.

Mr Callahan: All right. I will retract it as long as he clarifies for those who are watching what the situation is.

The Chair: Order, please. The member for Brampton South, would you please retract the word so that I can hear you well.

Mr Callahan: I thought I had, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Cooke: May I complete my very brief comments, Mr Chair? The other point that I would like to make -- on the inconsistencies of the Liberal caucus I think that point has been made. I would ask the Liberal Housing critic, who was rather agitated a few minutes ago that I was talking about their inconsistency, that she might want to take a look at the comments that her colleague has made in the last few minutes and understand why I and the members of my caucus are so absolutely confused about the position the Liberal Party has taken.

I will give the Tory party full credit. They take a very clear position on this: eliminate rent controls; let tenants go unprotected. That is the position the Tories have taken for a long time and it is a position I understand. But the Liberal Party, I have no idea where it stands on this issue and it is because members like the member for Brampton South speaks out differently than the member who is the Housing critic.

One final point: The member who was just speaking was referring to his mother and the experience in New York when it brought in similar types of legislation a few years ago, like we have. The New York legislation was brought in in 1947. I do not know how he can remember. Maybe he is older than I think he is, but I do not believe that he is and he might want to learn a little bit more about the New York situation before he quotes what happened some 43 years ago. That legislation was brought in 43 years ago. I am not sure, I guess the rhetoric that he wants to use in the Legislature is fine on this type of legislation, but the fact of the matter is, he did not know what he was talking about.

1740

Mr Mahoney: I would like to address the amendment actually, which might be a novel thing in here, but I would like to address that amendment and ask the minister a couple of questions. First of all, the former speaker, I have it on good authority, was at least 14 years old in 1947. It is hard to believe, he is so young and agile and youthful and quick-witted, but he was.

The amendment deals, however, with a statement that -- to the minister, if I could ask for a response, and could I ask him not to respond by reminding me how I voted. I know how I voted and I can guarantee I am not voting that way when it comes to third reading.

Hon Mr Cooke: Flip-flop.

Mr Mahoney: He can take whatever he wants out of it. I have examined it and have clearly decided that this is a bad bill that is flawed and I have no intention of supporting it on third reading.

Hon Mr Cooke: Flip-flop.

Mr Mahoney: If he wants to call it that, he is the government. We are criticizing his bill. If he wants to spend his time criticizing the opposition, well, he can go ahead. I have a thick skin. There is not too much he can say that will bother me.

I would like a position though, because the amendment put forward by the third party says that the amendment it wants is that certain things be allowed if, in the opinion of the minister, they are deemed necessary -- and this is very key and very important -- "to maintain the structural integrity of the residential complex." They include a number of things.

I heard the minister at a committee with very moist eyes describing a group of senior citizens in his riding in Windsor who were concerned. They were going to jump off the balcony, was what he said, if the rents went up. I have pointed out in this House before, now they are going to fall off the balcony because the minister is not going to take a look at any necessary repairs.

It says here, "In the opinion of the minister...to maintain the structural integrity," he would approve the repairing or replacing of dilapidated concrete and steel in an underground parking garage.

I would ask the minister straightforwardly why he will not accept the responsibility to examine a request for that kind of capital repair and why he would not look at a particular specific problem. What is he prepared to tell them to do if indeed, as with many examples that we saw brought before the committee, we saw garages that were falling down, concrete that was falling down, structural steel that was in danger, that was rusted? This simply says that if, in his opinion, the structural integrity would be damaged, he would approve that repair. Why will he not do that? I am asking a question.

Hon Mr Cooke: I remember the question very well because the same question was asked in committee. I believe very strongly that the structural problems that exist in the apartment units in the province did not happen all on 28 November of last year. It has always been a little bit surprising to me that all of a sudden parking garages and electrical work and so forth needed to be done on 28 November, when I introduced Bill 4.

It seems to me that there is $8 billion worth of rent being paid in this province by tenants and that it is not appropriate for him and his caucus to let landlords off the hook by saying that any capital expenditures have to go through the rent review system and have to result in higher rents. We believe that there is a responsibility, out of the $8 billion that is currently paid in rent, for capital to be expended in this province.

The Chair: Order. Pursuant to the time allocation order passed by the House this afternoon, I must interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and the remaining amendments, which are deemed to be moved according to the time allocation order.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It may not have been moved as an amendment to the motion, but it had been agreed among all of us that the votes for committee of the whole would be stacked for voting on Monday following routine proceedings -- in fact, the Orders and Notices has been put in place to allow that to happen -- and that in fact we would go fully to 6 of the clock this evening, then ask the committee to rise and report and again resume, to have the stacked votes taken on Monday following routine proceedings.

The Chair: I agree partly with what you say, except that I have to put the question for all amendments that have been presented, and the vote will take place on Monday.

Hon Mr Cooke: All the other amendments that have been tabled.

The Chair: That is correct.

Member for Mississauga South, I have to bring in the amendments now. Was it a point of order, or what was it?

Mrs Marland: It was not a point of order. I wish to take part in the debate.

The Chair: Let's follow the procedure.

We will deal first with the amendment moved by the member for Dufferin-Peel, section 9 of the bill, section 100e. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: Motion introduced by the Liberals, section 9 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(g): Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Ms Poole: Particularly this amendment, I would like it read out in full.

The Chair: It has been deemed to have been moved by the member for Eglinton that subsection 100e(2) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(g) any capital expenditure no longer borne in an amount up to the amount that was allowed in a previous order under this act or the Residential Tenancies Act."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mrs Marland: Are we indicating that we will have a recorded vote on each amendment?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is right. It is taken care of.

The Chair: It has been deemed that section 9 of the bill, clause 100e of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause --

Some hon members: Dispense.

The Chair: Dispense. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that subsection 100e of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause --

Some hon members: Dispense.

The Chair: Dispense. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

1750

The Chair: We will now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that subsection 100e(2) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(i) subject to subsection (8a), costs for capital expenditures incurred by the landlord of a mobile home park as the result of an order or a request of the Ministry of the Environment or the municipality."

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: A motion introduced by the Liberals: It has been deemed to have been moved that section 100e of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"(8a) The minister may disallow part or all of any capital expenditures under clause (2)(f) that, in his or her opinion, were required as a result of the ongoing, deliberate neglect of maintenance and repair of the residential complex.

"(8b) The minister shall consider evidence submitted as to the quality and value of money of the repair, replacement or renovation when determining the amount of the increase under clause (2)(f).

"(8c) The maximum amount the minister may allow in a determination under clause (2)(f) is 5% of the gross potential rent."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We shall now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 100(e) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(8a) The minister shall allow in each year an amount under clause (2)(i) that equals the total capital expenditures amortized over 15 years in the form of an equal annual payment."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Liberal motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act:

"100ga(1) This section applies to all work orders against a residential complex that have been filed by a municipality with the standards board and that are outstanding on or after the day that is 30 days after the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent.

"(2) If, in the opinion of the standards board, the subject matter of a work order affects the structural soundness of the residential complex or the health or safety of its tenants, the standards board shall give written notice to the landlord informing the landlord,

"(a) that the work order is outstanding;

"(b) that if the landlord does not make reasonable efforts to comply with the work order within 30 days of the date of the notice, the standards board will notify all affected tenants of that fact; and

"(c) that upon receiving notice under clause (b), the tenants will have the right to withhold that portion of rent equal to the percentage increases permitted under subsection 71(1) until the standards board is satisfied that the landlord is making reasonable efforts to comply with the work order.

"(3) If the landlord does not make reasonable efforts to comply with the work order within 30 days of the date of the notice, the standards board shall forthwith notify all affected tenants of their rights under subsection (4).

"(4) A tenant may withhold that portion of rent equal to the percentage increase permitted under subsection 71(1) if he or she has received a notice from the standards board that the landlord has not made reasonable efforts to comply with the work order and may continue to do so until the standards board notifies the tenant otherwise.

"(5) Upon receiving satisfactory evidence that the landlord is making reasonable efforts to comply with the work order, the standards board shall forthwith notify all affected tenants that it has received that evidence and that they may no longer withhold the portion of their rent."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act:

"100ia. Section 91 applies with necessary modifications in respect of chronically depressed rent as if an application made under section 74 were an application made under section 100d and an order made under subsection 83(1) were an order made respecting an application under section 100d."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Liberal motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 100n of the act --

Ms Poole: Dispense.

The Chair: Dispense. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: There are some members of the New Democratic Party who are voting who are not in their seats.

Hon Mr Cooke: What about Chris?

Mr Stockwell: I'm not voting.

Mrs Marland: He is not voting.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. It is a voice vote.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I suggest, with respect, that members in this House, whether they are standing to vote or it is a voice vote, have to be in their seats. We have at least seven members of the New Democratic Party government at this point who are voting who are not in their seats.

The Chair: It is a voice vote and the ruling has been made.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. It is a voice vote and the ruling has been made.

We will now proceed with a Liberal motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 100n of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill --

Hon Mr Cooke: Dispense.

The Chair: Dispense. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 100n of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by striking out "1 October 1990" wherever it occurs and substituting in each case "the day the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Liberal motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act:

"100ta(1) In this section, 'economic eviction' in respect of a tenant occurs when the tenant is forced to discontinue a residential tenancy because of a rent increase that the tenant cannot reasonably afford to pay.

"(2) The minister shall, within 30 days of being asked to do so by a tenant, give the tenant priority on the waiting list for housing provided by the Ontario Housing Corp if, in the opinion of the minister, the tenant has experienced economic eviction.

"(3) The minister shall, within 30 days of being asked to do so by a tenant, make reasonable efforts to ensure that the tenant is given priority on waiting lists for co-operative housing and any other non-profit rent-geared-to-income housing other than that provided by the Ontario Housing Corp if, in the opinion of the minister, the tenant has experienced economic eviction."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chair: We will now deal with a Liberal motion, the last motion. It has been deemed to have been moved that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act:

"100tb(1) In this section, 'economic eviction' in respect of a tenant occurs when the tenant is forced to discontinue a residential tenancy because of a rent increase that the tenant cannot reasonably afford to pay.

"(2) If, in the opinion of the minister, a tenant has experienced economic eviction, the minister shall, within 60 days of being asked to do so by the tenant, provide the tenant with a comparable rental unit at a price the tenant can afford."

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: In the absence of the House leader, I would like to report to the House on the business for next week:

On Monday 22 April we will have the deferred decisions on Bill 4 that have been put off till that day. That will be followed by third reading of Bill 4 and a vote at 5:45.

Tuesday 23 April is an opposition day standing in the name of the member for Nipissing.

On Wednesday 24 April we will have debate on a motion for interim supply covering a three-month period commencing 1 May 1991.

On Thursday 25 April government business in the afternoon will be debate on concurrences in estimates concerning the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment.

On Thursday morning will be private members' hour, ballot item 13, standing in the name of the member for Simcoe Centre, and ballot item 14, standing in the name of the member for Halton Centre.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Before we leave, I think it is nice to end on a pleasant note. I know we have thanked the pages, but I would ask you once again to thank the pages for their five weeks here with us.

[Applause]

The House adjourned at 1805.