The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GLAXO CANADA INC

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It gives me great pleasure to recognize the efforts of Glaxo Canada Inc in my riding. Last April 14, Glaxo broke ground for a $70-million manufacturing facility. This event was attended by the Prime Minister, our mayor, Hazel McCallion, as well as many members of this Legislature and colleagues at the federal and municipal levels.

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, Glaxo Canada is one of the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies in the country and recently introduced the breakthrough migraine medicine Imitrex. The state-of-the-art manufacturing plant is slated for completion in 1995 and will produce a range of medicines, with an estimated 50% of the plant's output to be exported, primarily to the United States.

In addition, as part of the ceremonies, Canada scholarships graduation certificates were presented to 10 university students demonstrating academic excellence in the biological sciences.

I would like to congratulate Glaxo Canada and Mr Jacques Lapointe, the president and chief executive officer, for their continuing commitment to research and development and impetus for our young people to be involved with the biological sciences. Congratulations to all who took part in a very special day.

CANADIAN ACADEMIC DECATHLON CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise to inform members that my community of Burlington hosted this year's Canadian Academic Decathlon Championships which took place on Saturday, April 25. Seventy-nine students participated in 10 challenges, including a four-minute prepared speech, an impromptu address, a formal essay and examinations in six subject areas, ending with a superquiz where teams answered questions on a wide range of high school curricula.

I am pleased to report that students representing Burlington Central High School took first place at the decathlon championships. These students then travelled to San Diego to compete with an international panel of students and there they placed fourth behind England and Australia, finishing only 27 points behind the winning American team.

The Burlington team captain, Melvin Lee, received a certificate as most valuable team member for the North American contingent. Team member Jon Fagan, who placed third overall in a field of 24 competitors, was joined by Becky Farrell and Wendy McCully, who was declared most supportive team member to compete, to complete Canada's winning combination.

As the member for Burlington South, I should like to publicly congratulate these students for their significant academic achievements nationally and internationally. I should also like to congratulate the president of the Canadian Academic Decathlon Association, Barbara Porecki, who organized this year's contest and who is herself a teacher at Burlington Central High School. It was largely through Barbara's tireless efforts that the decathlon has become what it is today, a harbinger of Canadian academic excellence of which we can all be very proud.

JOE TERSIGNI

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): In December I told the House about Mr Joe Tersigni, a teacher at Our Lady of Lourdes High School in Guelph. For the past three years Joe Tersigni has organized student forums on national unity, bringing together high school students from across Canada to discuss constitutional issues and the future of this country.

Today the staff and students at Lourdes and Guelph residents are proud that Joe Tersigni has been named one of the top 10 teachers of the year by the Toronto Sun. He was picked from more than 1,100 entrants from around the province and was nominated by another Guelph constituent, Marino Gazzola.

Mr Gazzola is a police officer and now a trustee with the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Mr Gazzola teaches the VIP program -- that's the Values, Influences and Peers program. The Sunday Sun quotes from Mr Gazzola's nominating letter:

"Mr Tersigni teaches Canadian history, and taking into consideration some of the national crises this country is in the midst of, that in itself must be an accomplishment.... His students are the first to acknowledge that their personal experiences in this learning process could never be matched in textbooks."

Joe Tersigni is working hard to draw students and politicians to his third forum during the fall. They've invited the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of this province. The students have expressed great admiration for the Premier and hope he will attend. I hope my colleagues of all parties in the Legislature will be able to attend at least one of the sessions in Guelph, to watch these students work together. I think we can all learn something from Mr Tersigni and his students.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise in the House today to comment on the recent tour of the 1992 volunteer service awards, which arrived in the riding of Kenora on Tuesday, May 12. The awards show was cosponsored by the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Culture and Communications. I wish to congratulate those recipients in my riding and across the province.

Volunteers do not ask to be recognized or awarded. That is not part of the definition of a volunteer. When they are recognized, the ceremony means a lot to them. They're being rewarded for their goodwill and at this point the volunteer awards become significant to those individuals. It is on this aspect of the awards that I wish to focus your attention today.

The invitations to the ceremony indicated the presence of both the Minister of Culture and Communications and the Minister of Citizenship. This, as you can well imagine, is well worth the five-hour round trip that many of my constituents drove to attend the ceremony. The attendance of the two ministers of the provincial cabinet brings a sense of anticipation and pride to this evening. The recipients were, however, disappointed. Neither minister attended.

Let me at this point stress that I'm aware of the demands on the members of cabinet. Since no explanation was given for their absence, I can only assume that their plans were changed. That is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the fact that the volunteers were not given an explanation, nor was there any sort of apology to these people. The rhetoric of six northerners in cabinet no longer holds water. This is yet another prime example of where northerners just aren't important to this government.

RENT REVIEW

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My party is concerned that Bill 121 so severely limits the remuneration property owners can obtain to do repairs that Ontario's aging rental stock cannot be properly maintained. Older buildings which require expensive repair and restoration are particularly likely to deteriorate.

In an interview published in the Toronto Star last Saturday, the Minister of Housing acknowledged:

"There are buildings where renovations are not getting done, and I would like to take a look at whether we should be trying to generate some kind of program that's going to do renovations in buildings that are otherwise not getting the attention they should.... It's an issue I want to come back to."

This last statement is almost identical to the minister's words in the standing committee on general government of November 7, 1991, when she said, with respect to subsection 7(2) of the bill, "I am still thinking about matters relating to that." It is unbelievable that on the eve of reporting Bill 121 back to the committee of the whole House this minister is acknowledging that the rent review system will still contain major flaws which will have to be addressed with new programs after the bill has passed.

Bill 121 has been reviewed in the general government committee for several months and has received more than 250 amendments. It is unconscionable that the minister is still thinking about how to correct the flaws in her legislation. If this is the best she can do, she should withdraw the bill today before her government does irreparable damage to the rental housing stock, the tenants and the property owners of this province.

1340

SAULT STE MARIE GREYHOUNDS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to pay tribute to the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds. This year, like last year, they won their division and the Ontario Hockey League championship, except this year they came within seconds of winning the Memorial Cup.

The story of the Sault Greyhounds parallels very clearly the story of my community. It was not so long ago that we almost lost our team and the community gathered around a rescue effort. Today we have a champion two years running. This past year Algoma Steel, our major industry, struggled. In this instance as well the community gathered around. We expect that in the not-too-distant future we will also have a champion in this instance.

A few weeks ago, in speaking about the Sault and Algoma Steel, I said to this House to expect more from us. Well, here we are again. Congratulations, Sault Greyhounds. Congratulations, Sault Ste Marie.

ONTARIO HEAD INJURY ASSOCIATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I find it ironic, especially at a time when the New Democratic Party government is in the process of establishing gambling casinos in this province, that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is making it almost impossible for the Ontario Head Injury Association to become financially self-sufficient.

The association relies on the sale of Nevada break-open tickets for its administrative core funding, as well as for its programs and services that help survivors of traumatic brain injury. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is blocking this effort with an unreasonable guideline requiring an association office in each municipality where these fund-raising tickets are sold. This is an economically foolish guideline. Does the minister really expect the Ontario Head Injury Association to spend its Nevada ticket revenue on offices rather than on its community services?

Minister, your rhetoric about consultation does not fit your actions. A few weeks ago the ministry had excluded the association from any consultation on changes to rules governing the licensing and sale of Nevada break-open tickets. I understand one meeting has been held. The association has asked for another and has yet to hear from your ministry. I have met with the association and strongly support its efforts to participate in these important discussions. Please meet with them, Minister.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am pleased to stand in the Legislature today to give my full support to Sunthetic Energy Inc in its endeavour to create Sudbury as a centre for environmental technologies. Sunthetic Energy Inc is proposing to construct a combined cogeneration/mixed ether project. This project will exist in a complex to be located within the regional municipality of Sudbury.

This technology uses waste materials to manufacture large quantities of renewable methanol. It also makes the production of ethanol from grain commercially viable. Raw material requirements for the project will benefit the regional economy as well as the provincial economies of Ontario and Alberta.

This technology makes the production of ethanol commercially viable, and the project does not require federal tax subsidies. Ethanol could be sold in the Ontario market for a profit without any government subsidies. The project promises to make Sudbury known for its competitively priced and environmentally safe power. The major market for renewable ethanol is the United States.

A testament to the quality and viability of this project is the support that it has received from a large number of corporations around the country. This project promises great improvements for the regional infrastructure in northern Ontario. In addition to tangible economic benefits, the project will generate considerable engineering, consulting, construction and related expertise in the Sudbury region. I want to extend my very best wishes for its success in the future.

JOHN ANDERSON

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It is with great pleasure that I inform the House and its members today of an event that will take place on June 7, 1992, in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich.

It is on this date that a retirement ceremony will be held for Mr John Anderson, an outstanding teacher with Notre Dame Elementary School in south Windsor since September 1975. John, your teaching friends, Mr Brunett, my daughter Leana and all the students wish you well.

I first met Mr Anderson many moons ago, in grade 5 at St Angela grade school on Ellis Street in Windsor, where he taught me science. Here's where we are today. I'm positive that his former colleagues Tim Coughlin and Brian Plante will also say best wishes and congratulations.

Mr Anderson is highly respected both by his peers and his students. Mr Anderson has proved over and over again to be a very valuable teacher as well as a good friend. Although June 30 does mark the end of his 35-year teaching career, I'm certain Mr Anderson will continue to make a valuable contribution to society even after he retires.

A reputable citizen, Mr Anderson has dedicated much of his life to teaching. His interest in a good education is, of course, appreciated by many. On behalf of the community of Windsor-Sandwich, all of Windsor and the students who have greatly benefited by Mr Anderson's talents, I would like to congratulate him in this House today and wish him all the best in his retirement years. Congratulations, John. This one is for you.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Marek Tawasijevitch, the governor of Pomerania, and five members who are in his delegation. Welcome to our chamber.

PROCEDURAL OFFICERS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wish to inform all members of the enhancement of the clerks' table with the addition of some procedural officers, whom many of you will recognize. Several of the committee clerks will be taking part in a career development program, part of which includes experience in this House at the table.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like all members to join me in welcoming our ninth group of pages who are serving in this, the 35th Parliament of the Ontario Legislature:

Clare Bastedo, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Darren Anderson, Lambton; Jason Brooks, Sudbury East; Lillian Carder, Middlesex; Christopher Da Silva, Fort William; Sarah Govier, Rainy River; John Grant, Guelph; Jeffrey Halili, York Mills; Melanie Hazelton, Niagara South; James Henderson, Etobicoke West; Christopher Hoskin, Frontenac-Addington; James Hugh, Markham; Scott Kerr, Victoria-Haliburton; Peter Koven, St Andrew-St Patrick; Tamara Landry, Niagara Falls; Elizabeth Long, Essex-Kent; Marylin Mandy, Wentworth North; Sarah McDowell, Burlington South; Jerrica McKinnon, Bruce; Melissa Moreau, Welland-Thorold; Lora Nafziger, Perth; Salim Nakhjavani, Prescott and Russell; Jennifer Parsons, Durham East; Robin Parsons, Mississauga North; David Prang, Brant-Haldimand; Jan Soltysik, Halton North; Paula Tenaglia, Algoma; Melvin Wharton, Brampton South; Paul Yau, Riverdale; Emily Zegers, Kingston and The Islands.

Please welcome all our pages here to our next session.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to make a statement. I believe the opposition parties have been consulted on this.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the cooperation of the opposition parties.

1350

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There are few issues that strike to the heart of every person. One such issue is missing children. When a child goes missing, we are all affected. Every member feels that awful combination of sadness, anger and helpless frustration, the disbelief that this has happened once again. We all feel shock and horror when the body of a child is found and "missing" becomes "murdered."

Nine-year-old Rosalyn Dupuis lived in the small village of Whitefish, within the town of Walden. Early last Wednesday evening she was riding her bike to the local park to play with friends. She didn't make it.

By late Wednesday night, the news swept through my community. It seemed the impossible had happened. What we thought could never happen in our rural town was now reality.

Early Thursday morning, hundreds of residents of Walden and Sudbury turned out to search the bush for one of their own. One could only imagine the anguish felt by Rosalyn's parents. Sadly, the search was short and tragic. Rosalyn's body was found by midmorning.

Mr Speaker, I can tell you my community now feels a universal sense of loss. The Sudbury Regional Police and the OPP will do everything in their power to locate the perpetrator of this awful crime, but finding the killer of Rosalyn Dupuis will not return this little girl to her family. To them, we can only offer our deepest sympathy. There are, unfortunately, many more families like Rosalyn's. Most of these families do not even have the comfort of knowing where their children are or what happened to them. Without knowing, there is no resolution possible for these families. Their pain goes on.

Today, I'm wearing a green ribbon on my lapel. Green ribbons were worn by the friends of Kristen French during the agony of her abduction and murder earlier this spring. This symbol of solidarity with the families and friends of missing children has been adopted by Child Find International, an organization that works with families and police forces to assist in the location of missing children. I urge all members to support the Green Ribbon of Hope campaign.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I rise in response to and certainly in sympathy with the statements that have been made by the member for Nickel Belt about Rosalyn Dupuis and several other children, now numbering unfortunately in the hundreds, who are missing across this country, across the province and across various communities.

Members may recall that earlier this session I made a statement in this House about the finding, unfortunately in this case, of Kristen French from St Catharines, who had been missing for a number of days. The community is quite united, as the member for Nickel Belt will certainly attest; the community unites in these circumstances. We were all saddened, first of all, by the loss of Kristen, and eventually, when she was found murdered, the whole community was horrified by this. On that occasion, I made a statement that I think is appropriate, as the member for Nickel Belt has indicated today, when I said as follows:

"Life seems so unfair when a kind, gracious, innocent girl is taken from her family, her friends and her colleagues at school, in broad daylight in a church parking lot in the midst of a residential subdivision. The sense of vulnerability for women of all ages cannot be made more acute than by the bold, calculating, cruel kidnapping of a girl on her way home from school in her own neighbourhood.

"A violent act perpetrated upon an individual in our society is a violent act against all of society, a fact not lost on the community, which has responded overwhelmingly to the tragedy which has befallen the family of Kristen French. Attitudes and actions which breed individuals who prey upon the vulnerable must be reversed." All of us will agree with that. "Violence against women, young and old, under whatever pretext, must not be tolerated.

"The enactment and enforcement of laws to deal with violent crime must reflect the revulsion of our society against such crimes. It is not an issue which can be avoided, delayed or debated endlessly. It must be addressed now and it must be addressed with commitment and determination" by all of us.

It was interesting, and the member for Nickel Belt would experience, I'm sure, exactly the same thing: With all the issues confronting this Legislature, the federal Parliament and local communities, in this case adjacent to Sudbury and in my case the city of St Catharines, the people are concerned about one issue, and that issue is the missing children, the missing young people in the community. It was on the day the Treasurer brought down his budget, and those of us who are in this Legislature would be preoccupied with that, would see the sense of importance of a provincial budget. Yet I'm sure when people in St Catharines and indeed probably people in much of Ontario turned on the television sets and learned Kristen French had been found, their focus of attention was on something that's very human for all of us, something to which everyone in the province can relate.

We should not have to have circumstances where children must be apprehensive about approaching adults when people are simply being friendly, when people are being kind to those young people. Yet unfortunately, in the circumstances we face in our society and much of the world today, we have to teach children to be careful, have to teach them to be cautious, have to teach them to be standoffish, if you will, with some adults, and I find that most unfortunate.

There were a number of people who attended the funeral for Kristen French. The Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, has made reference to the Ontario Provincial Police and the local police in his area. The people who were in attendance at the funeral of Kristen French with tears in their eyes were also members of the police force, because on so many occasions they are the people who, if not make the discovery, of course have to do the investigation. It's not a pleasant job. Most of them who have children or who understand children and know families feel it for themselves and for their own families, as well as of course for the family who has been struck by this kind of tragedy.

We all support the police in their efforts to find those who are responsible for it. We have to look at a lot of ways of dealing with these matters. I don't want to get into them today -- they are the subject for another day's debate and discussion -- what the federal Parliament and provincial Parliament can do to reduce the risk. But the fact is that children are always going to be vulnerable.

When we find the children, so many of us are sad when the ending is a tragic ending, as so many of them are. We have Terri Anderson as well missing in our community. We have had the body of another person discovered in the Port Dalhousie harbour in St Catharines. Our hearts all sink. I don't think there's anybody who doesn't watch a television newscast and not have a sinking heart at the very thought of this.

What is disconcerting -- my colleagues from the St Catharines area are here and would agree, I'm sure -- is that terror begins to grip a community when these occasions arise. I know that all of us in this assembly, and all people of concern and all people of goodwill, will be doing everything possible to avoid this from happening in the future and that our hearts go out to the family of Rosalyn Dupuis and to all those families of missing and injured and murdered children across our country.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): It has been said that the most vulnerable in our society are our children, especially our infant children, and it is for that reason that the tragic loss of Rosalyn Dupuis is filled with so much grief and so much sorrow. We can only hope and pray that her soul is at rest and we can pray for her family and her friends and the entire community of Whitefish, who are trying to understand this devastating loss.

The circumstances here have also brought to rest an issue, which is that the small community of Whitefish has shown that no corner of this province is really immune. Just as my colleague the member for St Catharines has referenced several murders in his riding, the murders in Burlington South are well known: Leslie Mahaffy and Nina de Villiers. But I think the province of Ontario is beginning to realize that no community is safe any longer, and therefore questions always emerge: What are we as legislators doing about it?

I am concerned, and I'm sure all members of this House share the concern, that the innocence of a small child has been taken by a murderous act, but so too has our society become increasingly aware of our own loss of public safety and societal innocence. So although we will all commend ourselves to the solidarity of wearing a green ribbon and acknowledging the importance of a green ribbon acknowledgement day, it's important that we commend that agenda to our attention and our priority every day, because that is what the public is telling us. If we are truly going to respond to this crisis in our province, we must commit ourselves in this Legislature. These are very difficult financial times, and the process of setting priorities can sometimes be done by the government and sometimes it can be done by the public. If we are listening to those communities, we will be responding with some more of these public safety measures.

1400

As rare as it is, I would commend the Solicitor General for recently responding to calls from this side of the House to increase financial support to assist the combined police efforts at finding and apprehending the murderer of young Kristen French. That announcement was made late last week. I thank the minister for responding to those concerns, which came legitimately from the citizens of St Catharines and Burlington and were shared by the police forces.

I commend as well the Attorney General, who's about to make an announcement on funding for two child victim witness programs. Although it can be said Ontario does not have a victims' bill of rights for the families which have to go through the ordeal that is occurring in Whitefish and other communities throughout this province, it's safe to say there are small projects occurring virtually somewhere in this province at any one time. But are they truly accessible for all the children and the grieving families in this province?

I want to reiterate a point my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville has made on several occasions. Whether we wish to deal with this or not, we must deal as a Legislature with the increased trend towards granting earlier and more frequent release and leave to known sex offenders from our institutions in this province. That is a challenge. It is a financial challenge. It is one which we must all commend ourselves to if we are truly to respond to those children who do not have a voice when these tragedies occur.

We as legislators of all political parties join the member for Nickel Belt and are pleased to join the member for St Catharines in paying our tribute to the loss and the life of young Rosalyn Dupuis and the green ribbon campaign to which she now stands as one of its soldiers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Nickel Belt, the member for St Catharines and the member for Burlington South for their kind and sensitive remarks. It's time for statements by ministers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PREMIER'S VISIT TO JAPAN AND HONG KONG / VISITES DU PREMIER MINISTRE AU JAPON ET À HONG-KONG

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have two statements to make. One, on the Constitution, I've shared with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party and I'll come to in a moment, but the first one is to do with the report of my recent trip to Japan and Hong Kong.

The combined length of these two texts may take me over the time allotment but I certainly know that my members would want to recognize the rights of both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party to take a reasonable length of time in responding, but certainly not to stick to the five-minute limit, if that's agreed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We're just happy to have you here.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the member for St Catharines that he was always uppermost in my mind whenever I was away, as he is on this day.

I want to take this opportunity to report to the House on my recent trip to Japan and Hong Kong.

First, this visit reinforced my belief that Ontario must strengthen its links to these important economic partners. It may sound like a cliché, but the energy and vibrancy of the people and the economies hit you as soon as you step off the plane at Hong Kong's Kai-Tek airport or the moment you reach Tokyo.

We share a rich history. Thanks to decisions made by hundreds of thousands of individuals, Asia and the Pacific have become a very important part of Ontario's heritage. People from all parts of Asia have chosen to make Ontario their home. While they've become Canadians, they've not abandoned their languages, cultural roots or contacts. By phone, fax, jet and videocassette Ontario is now profoundly linked with Asia. We have learned much from each other and we still have much to learn.

During the six days I spent in Japan I spoke with many business leaders, workers and government representatives about the need to further develop our relationships. I spoke of our need to encourage and assist Ontario companies to move into Japan's market. I was able to meet with the Minister of International Trade and Industry, Mr Watanabe, and the chairmen of Komatsu, Sony and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers' Association, the presidents of NHK Spring, Mitsubishi Corporation -- I also met with the chairman of Mitsubishi -- Sumito Heavy Industries and Hirose Electronics, along with a number of other leaders. I talked with them about the degree to which Ontario has learned from Japan's experience.

Turning to some of the specifics of my trip, my time in Hong Kong was brief, just over 24 hours, but I was able to meet with some of the leading industrialists and investors, including Mr K.S. Li and Dr F.S. Cheng. I also met with some 40 members of the Canadian business community and spoke to about 200 at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I met with Mr James Ting, the president and CEO of International Semi-Tech Microelectronics, an enormously successful Canadian multinational company, and also with Mr James So, the Secretary for Recreation and Culture, who is in charge of the Festival Hong Kong in Canada, which will be taking place in September and October of this year. I also met with the Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Wilson.

During my visit to Japan, in conversations with Mr Kozo Watanabe, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, and with others, I expressed concerns about the so-called "voluntary plan" by Japanese auto manufacturers. It is essential that companies in Canada be fairly and equally considered in any decisions on North American sourcing. I also made it very clear that Ontario is committed to fighting US protectionism of the sort created by the success of the Honda plant in Alliston. We look forward to a speedy and successful resolution of the Honda dispute, and we will continue to defend the rights of our investors against unfair attacks by other trading partners no matter where they come from.

I also pointed out to Minister Watanabe that Ontario had been an active supporter of Osaka's Expo '90, and I asked for Japan's support in Toronto's bid for Expo '98. It would provide a much-needed balance: Europe is home to Expo '92 and Expo '96, and Expo 2000 went to Hanover, Germany, after Toronto lost the bid by only one vote. I made it clear that the Ontario government is leading the campaign to have Expo '98 in our province and that my colleagues the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have lobbied hard for Toronto, with its positive theme of multiculturalism.

Comme les autres pays, le Japon n'a pas échappé aux changements survenus dans l'économie. Son taux de croissance a ralenti et la hausse du yen a nui à son marché d'exportation. Mais ce pays possède une qualité enviable pour avoir toujours su surmonter ce genre de difficultés ; c'est une tradition dont nous pourrions tirer un grand enseignement. Nous avons vu le Japon à l'oeuvre pour créer une société solidaire, et nous avons admiré l'adresse avec laquelle il a abandonné les industries en déclin pour s'intéresser à des activités économiques toujours plus progressistes les unes que les autres. Depuis une quarantaine d'années, ce pays avance à pas de géant dans les secteurs de la santé publique, de l'éducation et de la formation.

Investing in people, investing in services, investing in research and new technologies, building cooperation instead of conflict, being willing to adapt to change: These are all ingredients of success that both Japan and Ontario understand.

On my trip I spoke with more than 100 executives of Japanese companies who had lived in Ontario and who are forming the Ontario Club to promote Ontario interests in Japan. I told them we welcome Japanese investments, the technology, knowledge and skills that Japanese companies bring with them, and Ontario's location, within a day's drive of 100 million North Americans and within a two-day drive of 170 million people, makes it an ideal continental production base.

But we must do more, ourselves, to emulate the export orientation of Japan and Asia. We should be training more young Canadians to speak Japanese and Chinese to prepare for marketing challenges in the Pacific Rim. I know it's a challenge; there's a lot more legwork involved than in making a sale to Cleveland. But we can persist and develop strong business relationships. At a breakfast with some 20 young Canadians involved in a variety of businesses in Japan I was struck by their excellent language skills and years of experience in this market. We must make better use of their talents and abilities. I hope the Canadian private sector will develop the same enthusiasm for investing in training such young people and putting them to work.

We must move from simply being exporters to promoting a truly international perspective in the province. Our education and training, our investment and industrial strategies, our communications systems and language programs and our marketing skills all can reflect and foster this perspective. This is something well known in Japan and Hong Kong and in many other countries. Our businesses and our young people must begin to see themselves and their future in this light; this is Ontario's challenge.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure the member for Etobicoke West has had an opportunity to digest the impact of the first statement, and now perhaps I can turn to the second.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Okay, go now.

Hon Mr Rae: There'll be a slide presentation, if you'd like.

1410

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd like now to turn to the subject of the Constitution. I've given a copy of my statement to the leaders opposite. We had a brief opportunity to meet about this in my office at 1 o'clock. I hope they will understand that I may slightly embellish the text because there are some things I want to try to explain.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Not unusual at all.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Now that you have the floor.

Hon Mr Rae: But I will not be overly long. I know the member for York Centre will indulge me, as he always has in the past.

It's almost two years now since the Meech Lake accord failed to achieve ratification and become part of our Constitution. Since that time all of us, as citizens and as political leaders in the province, have given much thought to the Constitution and to the future of Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide you more information on what has been happening during this time, and also my assessment of where we are and where I hope we're going.

Our democratic system and our institutions are linked, our economies are linked, and our personal and family relations are linked, as are our human rights, our social programs and our relations with other countries.

When we work to renew the Constitution we have to think about all these links -- sometimes about making them tighter, and at other times about making them more flexible. All of history teaches, and recent world events certainly confirm, that states are fragile -- Canada, I would add, is certainly fragile -- that they have to be nurtured, and Canada has to be nurtured, and renewed and sometimes changed significantly if they are to adapt and survive and prosper. That is why what we are doing in reforming our Constitution is so important.

This round is about all the linkages among us: between provinces, between regions, between cultures and between peoples. We want the linkages to be both strong and flexible so as to allow the whole -- Canada -- to be inclusive. Inclusiveness is what this round is all about. It is our most important theme: inclusiveness of Quebec, the aboriginal peoples, the west, the east, central Canada, racial and ethnic minorities -- all Canadians.

This is why we have said from day one and from the earliest debates and discussion we had in the Legislature following the Meech Lake accord -- I think there was general agreement following the failure of the ratification of Meech -- that this next round, yes, has to deal with Quebec's problems, but it has to be a round that's seen as being a round for all of Canada. Certainly that's the perspective I've taken into these discussions.

Nous devons constamment nous adapter à de nouvelles idées, à de nouveaux mouvements sociaux et à de nouvelles conditions économiques. C'est habituellement un processus imperceptible et naturel, mais nous devons parfois faire le point et penser aux changements nécessaires et à la façon dont nous pouvons collectivement nous adapter aux nouvelles contraintes de manière à ce que les liens fondamentaux demeurent.

Il n'est pas paradoxal de dire que nous devons, de temps à autre, modifier la constitution pour qu'elle continue de représenter fidèlement tous les citoyens et toutes les citoyennes. La plupart d'entre nous reconnaissent que les pourparlers actuels sur le renouveau constitutionnel sont peut-être les plus importants depuis 1867. C'est sans doute pourquoi la population a participé en si grand nombre aux conférences et aux audiences.

It is also important because I think it's clear to all of us that Canada as a federation is not working as well as it should and certainly not working as well as we all know it can. The economy is on everybody's mind, and Ontario believes that all the tools in the hands of governments must be used to help pull it out of this serious recession. To do this, elected leaders in our federal system have to apply themselves together in the spirit of unity and cooperation.

This round of constitutional renewal is also important because success would mean a modernized political structure where past grievances would no longer interfere with present-day challenges. If Canadians are to deal successfully with the challenges of a changing world, we must first resolve the lingering injustices of the past.

Without being alarmist -- because I'm not -- let us admit that we are working hard to achieve a resolution because the consequences of failure would be very destructive to the Canada we want for ourselves and for our children. Over the past two years, Canada entered an intense period of public consultations, national and provincial, in a search for constitutional renewal that would respond to diverse needs and aspirations within a united country.

At the end of February of this year, the joint parliamentary committee set up by the federal government submitted its report, known as the Beaudoin-Dobbie report, called A Renewed Canada. At that time I gave an initial response to the report on behalf of the government. I indicated that it was a good start, but I also emphasized my concern that there appeared at that time to be no plan for how to move from this report to a final package of amendments that legislatures could then move to ratify. I said at that time that it was important for us to begin serious negotiations between Ottawa, the provinces and the territories. I pointed out that in a federal state, Ottawa on its own could not present a unilateral offer to Quebec.

As you know, Mr Speaker, on March 12 in Ottawa, at a meeting of ministers responsible for the Constitution, a number of provinces including Ontario proposed that we then engage in an intense multilateral process. At the end of the day on March 12, it was agreed that we would work together for a period of 10 weeks, until the end of May, to negotiate a multilateral constitutional reform package. We were missing Quebec then at the table, and we are still missing Quebec at the table now. We certainly hope it will soon decide to join us. We want to do our best for everyone and, ideally, we need everyone at the table so we can understand exactly what they require and also where they might be willing to compromise.

In our view, March 12 was an important turning point; we now had a multilateral process for negotiations. But we achieved much more on March 12. It was agreed that the representatives of the aboriginal peoples would take part in this process as full members. As well, for the first time ever, it was accepted that these leaders must participate at the table as equals when governments negotiate constitutional change.

A week after the March 12 meeting, our deputies -- federal, provincial and aboriginal -- got together and established a coordinating committee on the Constitution and four working groups of officials to prepare material for the negotiations between principals. Each group includes officials from all the participating delegations, and each has a bundle of issues with which it must deal. Group 1 deals primarily with the distinct society, the Canada clause and the amending formula; group 2 with the Senate; group 3 with aboriginal self-government issues, and group 4 with the division of powers, the social charter and the economic union. The groups got together before the end of March to begin their work, and by April 8 there was enough material for premiers, ministers and aboriginal leaders -- we call them "principals" now for short -- to discuss at the first substantive meeting in Halifax. Since then, principals have met almost weekly, and our final series of meetings begins tomorrow in Toronto.

While I was away, I was replaced at some of the meetings by the Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs, who has also joined me for many of the meetings. I think you all know that I or Mr Wildman was accompanied to each of these meetings by a member from each of the opposition parties who joined us as members of the Ontario delegation. I have deeply appreciated their participation, their commitment to the process, and the very real help, advice and perspective they have given us throughout. I cannot say enough about how much all of us in Ontario have benefited from this approach and from our ability to work together to make sure this is not a partisan issue and that the steps we take are taken on behalf of all the people of the province. If I could, I would like to single out the member for York North, who has made a truly outstanding contribution to the delegation, as well as the member for Parry Sound, the member for Willowdale and the member for Carleton, who have all been involved at different times in the discussions.

1420

It may well be that at some point there will be partisan criticisms or partisan comments, and I don't mean that in a trivial sense. It may well be that parties decide to take a different position on a particular issue, and I don't resent that. But obviously it would be in everyone's interests if we could try to pull this together. I'll come to why I think that's so important in a moment.

I want to say that the members who've been there have really been, for me, critical sources of advice. I want to encourage them to continue and urge them to do so. Also, as I've said to the leaders of both opposition parties, I very much hope they will be able to find some time to participate in the discussions in Toronto this week, because I think their participation would be very constructive and worthwhile.

We're a lot closer today to our goal of a best-efforts rough package than we were 10 weeks go. In fact, if we think of the period since the failure of the Meech Lake accord, I believe it is safe to say that more progress has been made during this period than in any other 10-week period in the last two years.

Of course, the process did not start from scratch. It built on much thinking and on consultations which have come before it, including the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, the hearings and the conference it held to find out what Ontarians feel and its final report. There were also the reports of other provincial committees, the federal proposals of last September, the six constitutional conferences and the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. These are all vital inputs into the process and they also assure the public that this is an open and transparent process even if political leaders must, from time to time, get together to negotiate the hard compromises.

Let me also say that I've been very much assisted by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Fort York, as well as by the previous work of the first Chairman of the select committee, the member for Dovercourt, who is now a minister in the cabinet, and the person who succeeded so ably to that task, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has been a very real help in terms of getting us to where we are today.

The goal of the multilateral process has been to develop a rough package of reform amendments for final consideration by first ministers and by aboriginal leaders. Since we are working to develop as much as we can a full package, not just discrete items, all the provisional agreements reached so far are subject to review as part of the final package.

I want to emphasize that point. I am doing something which I think I have to do in the interest of informing members and the public -- in a sense, a report card on a provisional basis as to where we are -- but I don't want anyone to think that any item I have described is finally agreed to even in the form in which I am describing it.

I think I have a responsibility to let people know on a provisional basis where we are; I'll come to that in a moment. But we're going to find that there will be those who will disagree and those who will say, "Well, that's not exactly what I need; I need this plus something else," and we then begin to get into the bargaining process again.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand the exact assessment of where we are. I feel the need to give you a report card, but I don't want to kid anybody that what we have here is in any sense a final package or a final agreement among provinces and among the aboriginal leaders. It is certainly possible, as the text says, that some of the details will be reconsidered in light of the ultimate package. I think that's putting it mildly.

With this in mind, here are the main items on which conditional consensus has been reached so far. I want to stress that not all the participants are agreed to everything, but I do want to give the House some sense of the main parameters.

Values: (a) There will be an interpretive Canada clause for the entire Constitution which will refer to, among other things, Quebec's distinct society, the linguistic duality of Canada, the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, ethnic diversity, our democratic institutions, the equality of the provinces within their diverse characteristics and the equality of women and men.

(b) Quebec will be recognized as a distinct society in the charter and in the Canada clause, as will be linguistic duality. The wording of the Beaudoin-Dobbie report is the basis of the consensus which seems to be coming together.

On the amending formula, there is agreement to discuss two approaches to changing the amending formula with respect to national institutions. These are unanimity and the so-called 7/85, which is a proposal which has come forward from the government of Saskatchewan and which we are all looking at on a working basis.

There is agreement to the principle that existing territories should be able to become provinces solely by an act of Parliament.

Provinces which opt out from transfers of jurisdiction from -- I would ask people to check their record -- the federal government will receive fair compensation.

There is agreement with the principle that aboriginal consent be required to future constitutional amendments which directly affect aboriginal people.

Senate: There is agreement that the Senate should be elected and there is agreement that it will not be a confidence chamber. There are a few other agreements with respect to the Senate, but basically what we're now doing is considering two Senate models which are being developed by the working groups on a working basis for the purposes of discussion and for the purposes of sharing information, one of which would be the so-called equal triple E model and the other the so-called equitable model. This approach allows officials and principals to work through many important details even though the fundamental issue of provincial or regional representation has not been resolved yet.

There is agreement that jurisdiction over Senate elections will be federal and that Senators will be elected by a proportional representation method which would encourage better representation of traditionally underrepresented groups.

Supreme Court: There is agreement on a provincial and territorial role in appointing Supreme Court judges.

Aboriginal issues: There is agreement to entrench in the Constitution the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government. The inherent right is recognized within Canada as one of Canada's three orders of government. Aboriginal leaders and governments are committed to negotiations to define the roles and responsibilities of aboriginal governments. This process will be open to all aboriginal people. The Charter of Rights will apply to aboriginal governments.

Social charter and economic union: There will be a social charter in the Constitution, to be described in section 36 in a subsection on the social and economic union. In many of its details, this statement will parallel Ontario's original proposal to protect Canada's health care system and social programs.

There will be a constitutional statement of the principle of free movement of persons, goods, services and capital.

Division of powers: There is agreement to recognize and clarify the existing exclusive provincial jurisdiction in tourism, forestry, mining, recreation, housing and municipal-urban affairs. Financial arrangements, which will be difficult and are yet to be negotiated, will be determined through a political accord.

There is agreement to recognize labour market training as an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and that program responsibilities be transferred to the provinces, together with financial compensation.

There is agreement to recognize culture as an area of provincial jurisdiction while recognizing -- and I want to emphasize this point because it must not be misunderstood -- and maintaining the continuing federal responsibility for national cultural institutions, including institutions which transfer grants to individuals and organizations across Canada.

Opting out from new national cost-shared programs with compensation will be possible if a province establishes a program to achieve national objectives.

There will be an enforceable obligation on the federal government to conclude an immigration agreement with any province requesting one. Any province negotiating an agreement must be accorded equality of treatment in relation to any other province's agreement.

There is agreement to the principle that changes to the division of powers in this round should not adversely affect aboriginal and treaty rights and there is an agreement to include a specific reference to economic infrastructure in section 36.

By way of conclusion -- and I appreciate the indulgence of the House in this regard -- whatever the outcome of this final week of negotiations among the principals may be -- and we have said to ourselves that we don't want to extend this process indefinitely; we do take our need to try to reach some kind of agreement seriously -- I think it is fair to say that the multilateral process that has been begun is a success. In fact, the constitutional reform process, of which it has been the latest phase, is moving forward and there is every reason to be optimistic.

1430

We have an important week of meetings coming up in Toronto, a week in which we will all be working hard on the rough package, which I believe should go to first ministers and aboriginal leaders in the near future. But this is not the final week at all of the reform process. More is going to take place in the coming weeks and, frankly, it is not yet entirely clear -- and certainly ministers and principals and premiers haven't agreed yet -- what exact shape the process is about to take. I rely on the advice of others in this regard.

What is clear is that the ingredients of the process -- genuine public involvement, genuine involvement by the legislatures and genuine political leadership -- will continue to be important. We in fact have to spend a little bit of time in determining that among ourselves. We will as Ontarians continue to negotiate and to listen, and when the time comes, when there is more clarity about the process, we will need to decide how this Legislature and how the people of Ontario will continue to be involved.

I look forward to the continuing commitment of members of the House. I look forward to their continuing support and to their continuing advice in this most critical time in our country's history.

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We all welcome the report the Premier has given us today on the constitutional discussions, a report which is clearly intended to keep informed not only the members of this Legislature but also the people of this province.

The Premier has indicated that he did invite the leaders of the two opposition parties to participate in the interprovincial discussions, and we very much appreciate that opportunity. The Premier has noted the involvement on a very regular basis of the member for York North, and there was no question in my mind in asking this particular member of our caucus to participate in those discussions on our behalf that he would indeed make a significant contribution to what we hope and trust will be the successful resolution of this most important debate.

There is surely no question that this is indeed an issue on which our partisan differences need to be set aside, in fact must be set aside, so that all of us are working towards a successful resolution of the discussions at the constitutional table. All of us who are Canadians and proud to be Canadians want to ensure that the unity of this nation is preserved, so we welcome the fact that there is progress being made, and we want to be able to share in that sense of optimism which the Premier has expressed today. C'est un grand défi et je suis heureuse d'offrir un peu d'optimisme aujourd'hui.

Having said that, we recognize that there are still significant challenges to be addressed in resolving some of those very critical issues at the constitutional table since, as the Premier has indicated, this is by no means a final package, but that there are also significant challenges to be addressed in ensuring that the final set of proposals is indeed understood, accepted and supported by the people of this nation. It seems to me that is one of the critical challenges the Premier and indeed his colleagues, the premiers of each of the provinces, as well as the Prime Minister of the country, must also address, and that's how to ensure that people in all provinces and regions are fully aware and fully understanding and able to participate in the final approval of this constitutional package.

It's absolutely essential, certainly within our province, that the people of Ontario understand what's being discussed, that they understand what the implications are of any proposals which are being considered or in fact any proposals which may be agreed to. It is also essential that people of the province be prepared to participate in what again we all hope will be the successful resolution of these very critical issues. It's important that the people of this province be invited to participate in this resolution in a way which is seen to be appropriate and timely.

There are issues which will concern the people of this province, and the Premier has touched on a number of them in giving us his update today.

Certainly people in this province are going to be concerned about the matter of Senate reform and the difficulty of finding that very important balance between the definition of what is equitable and the definition of what is effective. I believe the people of the province are going to have some questions about the redistribution of powers and are going to want to be assured that in looking at a new division of powers it will in fact be possible still to maintain an effective federation even as we meet the needs, and the changing needs, of people in different regions of the country.

I believe as well that the people of this province must have a needed understanding of the kinds of commitments that are being made, or that are perhaps intrinsic, in recognizing the inherent right of aboriginal self-government.

We recognize that these are all extremely important issues, that they are difficult to resolve, but they are also issues that the people of this province will want to be able to consider and discuss before any final approval of the constitutional amendments is sought.

We will watch this week's very critical discussions with a great deal of interest, we will participate to the extent we are able and we will look forward to the Premier's report to the House at the conclusion of this week's sessions.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO JAPAN AND HONG KONG

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I would like to congratulate the Premier on his recent trip to the Far East and tell him how pleased I am that he had a chance to see at first hand two of the most vibrant economies in the world. But I would like to express a note of caution and concern to the Premier.

He will know that by nature the Japanese in particular are a very polite community. I hope he would not take their politeness for a sign of approval and would know that, notwithstanding that as the Premier of Ontario, a position everybody in the Far East holds in very great esteem, they would treat him with that respect, there are concerns. Certainly on my recent trip there were some concerns expressed about some of the fiscal and legislative directions of this government. They may not, in their obligation to be polite, have said some of these things to him.

I hope he will understand that while there are wonderful opportunities in the Far East and a relationship has developed over the years, particularly with Hong Kong -- many of their citizens now live here, many of their businessmen invest here; the people of Japan also look to Canada as a source of investment -- this fragile alliance is just that, fragile, and that he make sure the policies of this government do nothing to upset that fragile relationship and that he continue to keep Ontario as a very attractive location for investment, not only from the Far East but from all our other world trading partners.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member for Wilson Heights has dealt with the substance of the Premier's trip to the Far East. I'd like to deal with the timing of the Premier's trip to the Far East.

I suppose those of us in the Legislature today should be honoured to have the Premier present. We haven't seen a lot of him lately. We always welcome him and love to see him in the House so we're able to direct questions to him and get some responses from him. I do believe, however, that we can justifiably question the timing of the Premier's trip to the Far East and his other globe-trotting activities when they take place when the House is sitting.

I can well remember, as you will, Mr Speaker, because you've been a long-time member of this House, that when the former Leader of the Opposition -- he was an excellent Leader of the Opposition, I always said that, and I'm sure will be a good Leader of the Opposition at some time in the future -- but I can remember that of paramount importance to the gentleman who is now the Premier of this province was the accountability of the Premier to the 130 elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly. The Premier has an opportunity when the House is not sitting, and with this government that covers a lot of territory these days, to make his trips to the Far East, to do his debating at Oxford, to travel to Cleveland and several other places.

I appreciate the fact and I do want to say, as the member for Wilson Heights has stated, that it's important that the Premier have that opportunity to visit places such as Hong Kong and Japan and other places around the world. I think that's exceedingly important. I do hope the Premier and those who are scheduling his globe-trotting in the future will ensure that the Premier does so, however, when the House is not sitting, in order that those of us in the opposition, and indeed some of his own members, will be able to ask the important questions of the day.

Sometimes what happens with those in public office, particularly those who have the highest public office -- and this transcends all political parties; I'm sure this could be applied to virtually any political party and any leader -- is that they start to lose touch with the day-to-day problems that confront the people of their jurisdiction. I know this Premier would not want that to happen to him. For that reason, I implore him to be present in the Ontario Legislature as often as possible.

I know that by taking the amount of time I have today, be it only a couple of minutes, I've reduced the chances of being able to ask the Premier a question later on, because he'll want to depart early for other meetings later on in the afternoon. I welcome him back. We're delighted to see him in the Legislature, and I urge him to be here much more often so we can question him.

1440

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I won't take time talking about the Premier's attendance in the House. I understand, as the leader of a political party, that there are other important functions that must be fulfilled, and I understand why the member for Wilson Heights, on behalf of his party, deferred that to the member for St Catharines.

Let me make a few comments on the Premier's first statement and then deal with the Constitution. I say to the Premier, if he would ensure that his government had a coherent and consistent economic policy, a moderate and fair tax system, a fiscal policy that promised businesses, entrepreneurs and investors a little more than debt and taxes and a legislative agenda that demonstrated that the government understood the requirements of businesses from all around the world, he wouldn't have to go cross-border shopping for investment dollars quite as often as he has felt it necessary to do.

I heard from a number of business people, Premier, who were aware of your trip to Japan. They cringed a little bit and hoped your presence there didn't remind the Japanese of the labour legislation or the taxation policy or the recent budget or the future legislative agenda of Ontario. I say that with a great deal of sincerity. There is a role for the Premier in promoting our businesses abroad and promoting the attractiveness of Ontario as a place to invest. It's very difficult, I might say at this particular time, for the current Premier to fulfil that role.

I might also add that I was intrigued to notice in the Premier's statement that he indicated forcefully to the people of Japan, and business people particularly, that he was confident the Canada-US free trade agreement was indeed the sound vehicle to fight protectionism on behalf of the Honda plant in Alliston. I just wanted to note the Premier's confidence in that free trade agreement.

Mr Bradley: You're stretching it a bit, Mike.

Mr Harris: Well, it's the Premier's statement. He wanted to make a point of it here in the Legislature. He reminded Japanese investors and business people of the fact that Ontario is located within a day's drive of 100 million North Americans and within two days' drive of 170 million people. That makes it an ideal continental production base. I assume he was promoting the free trade agreement and the fact that to be located in Ontario you have access not just to 10 million Ontarians but, because of the free trade agreement, to 100 million and indeed 170 million within two days' drive.

I just make note of the fact, as the Premier has here, of the Premier's great confidence and pride in the free trade agreement, I might add more so than I myself. I think there are still some things in the free trade agreement that need to be cleaned up a little bit. However, I appreciate the Premier's confidence.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do wish, though, to spend most of my time talking about our Constitution. I want to say, as the leader of the Liberal Party has said, as the Premier has said, that if there was ever an issue that transcends party politics, it is our Constitution and the very complex challenge of amending our Constitution. I have recognized this fact. I believe I have demonstrated that recognition over 11 years. My caucus colleagues have as well. Most recently we demonstrated that non-partisan support by being cosignatories to the provincial Constitution report and indeed by working very hard to make sure we had a report that could be signed unanimously by members of all three parties.

I also, on this issue as opposed to some others, as I acknowledge, extend my congratulations to the Premier for recognizing the importance of involving the opposition parties in the process. The involvement of the opposition parties, I point out, does not mean they are silenced or they will always agree, as the Premier has said, but it does mean they are informed. That has not always been the case and it's not the case on all issues.

When the Premier invited me to participate in Ontario's delegation to the constitutional negotiations he was indeed continuing an Ontario tradition that began with the Honourable John Robarts and has been carried on, more or less to varying degrees, I think the Premier would agree with me, throughout a period of time. I want to say to the Premier that nowhere have I found the degree of openness more so than he has extended to the opposition parties, and I appreciate that.

I also want to extend my thanks to the three members of my caucus who have participated as well in these negotiations: the members for Parry Sound, Carleton and Willowdale. I know the House leader for the New Democratic Party pointed out that it took three of our caucus members to one Liberal to grasp the complexities involved in the issues.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Did you read the second part of the note?

Mr Harris: I didn't read the second part of the note you sent over, House leader, but I want to suggest that I very humbly acknowledge it will take all 20 of us in our caucus, it will take all 130 members of this Legislature committed indeed to this process and to understand particularly the goals and the aspirations and the needs, if you like, of the other nine provinces, of the aboriginal people, of the territories and those a little different from our own constituencies.

Thanks to the updates I have been receiving from the Premier and the three members who have represented us, I believe -- I am not sure the Premier stated it this clearly -- we are closer to a constitutional deal today than we have been since the failure of the Meech Lake accord -- much closer today, I believe, than we were a year, six months or even three months ago. In fact, the Premier has cautioned us that it still leaves us a long way to go, and I agree with that as well. We are not there yet. With May 31 rapidly approaching it is far from guaranteed we will get there, in fact.

When I meet with people in Ontario -- and I have been meeting with many over the past few months; as you know, Premier, I have been travelling this province extensively -- the Constitution is not the first thing they ask me about; it is not the second; it is not the third. Very often it does not come up, even in the wide-ranging, wide-open forum I participate in with community receptions.

It's not because people don't care about the future of this country. Rather I believe it is because they have something more important on their minds and something they feel is more important to the future of their families, their jobs, themselves. If you're having trouble putting food on the table, it is difficult to work up a lot of interest in how senators are elected or who has control over natural resources or their export or whether or not the recognition of the inherent right of natives to self-government should be immediately enforceable in the courts.

1450

People are tired of the Constitution. They're tired of the constitutional jargon, which is very difficult even for those involved to understand, and of the wrangling. Over the past couple of years we've had provincial committees, we've had federal committees, we've had private committees, we've had public committees, all poking and prodding at our national psyche to determine what it is we really want out of this nation. To date, all we have determined is that, depending on where you come from in Canada, you probably have different expectations about what it is you want or expect or believe should be in a constitution. We're suffering from constitutional burnout.

That is why it is most important as politicians, as I remind Canadians and I remind Ontarians and I remind my caucus, to help our constituents realize the ramifications of constitutional failure, indeed of constitutional success at all costs. The ramifications of both of these options are very significant for all of us, for our futures and for our children.

There is one agreement, I believe, among many Canadians across the country. It is that a constitutional failure right now might well signal an economic collapse for Canada. As I speak with people from the business community, they tell me how hard it is to attract new investment to Canada right now with all the different things going on. Canada's not considered as safe a place to invest or do business in today as it once was. I'm hearing this across the country, even as the Premier I'm sure heard it in the Far East. Canadians need to understand that this investment we need for jobs and prosperity and how we are viewed around the world as well are important.

People think the world does not notice our constitutional difficulties. I've found that here, and they need to be reminded of that, as they're concerned about their jobs. All you have to do is go down to Bay Street and talk to investment bankers, to money traders, to bond salesmen, to stockbrokers, those who are dealing internationally, and you will find that the world is listening to and is watching what is happening right here in our Constitution in Canada.

Over the past couple of months great headway has been made in developing a Canada package of constitutional reforms, but there are many points yet to be worked out. The Premier has said that he is willing to sit until midnight on the 31st if that's what it takes to iron out an agreement. I applaud his dedication and say I hope that is indeed not necessary.

Since the failure of the Meech Lake accord, my sense from travelling this province is that the mood in Ontario has changed. I do not sense that we any longer have the anger and resentment of spurned suitors across this country, and I'm hearing that from my colleagues across the country. I think as the mood of the rest of Canada has changed, so has the mood in Quebec. Although this weekend saw a large number of separatists protesting outside the office of Premier Bourassa, I believe they were doing so because they sense their support is fading. I think it's important for all of us to realize that this is the climate we are in.

As much as we are haunted by the memory of the Meech Lake accord, this process is not the same process. It's important to tell our constituents across this province that. Some feel it is the same. It is not the same, and those who try to draw analogies between the two are mistaken. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us, because I think Ontarians are going to have a say and they need to understand this when the time comes for them to have their say.

For a very brief time, I'd like to speak to two specific issues.

To date, there is no agreement on reform of the Senate, whether it should be an equal chamber, as the Premier has said, or an equitable chamber. The Premier has been very strong in his defence of Ontario's position, and he should continue to do so. The Premier and I have spoken briefly on this issue today, and I repeat that today in the House, and I would urge him to re-read and remember the recommendation of our own special committee, which pointed out that the makeup of the Senate is a direct relationship to the powers it holds and its ability to wield those powers.

The second issue is property rights. While the Premier has been forceful in his address of a social charter, I have noticed that the issue of property rights has yet to be resolved.

In the Premier's statement he talked about there being an agreement on a social charter. I want to be very clear so that people don't misunderstand that this is a charter like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a charter that can be taken to the courts. A more accurate description is that there is agreement on a social statement of intent by all the provinces, by all the governments represented; that indeed is what there is agreement on. I think calling it a charter can be a little confusing, Premier, in that it is not to be a charter or a right.

However, with that one exception to the Premier's statement today, I urge him to be as vocal a proponent of property rights as he is of a social charter. Again, if the Premier would turn to the Ontario special committee, it offered recommendations, unanimously by all three parties in this Legislature, on wording as to how property rights could be pursued.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Not even the feds want that.

Mr Harris: I know that the minister responsible for native affairs, the Minister of Natural Resources, who sits in on these negotiations, will want to reflect the wishes of his own members on the Constitution committee as well.

Finally, in order to forestall comparisons with the closed-door process of the Meech Lake accord, I urge the Premier to take this agreement to the people. I appreciate that, to a degree, that's what he is doing today in the statement he has made to the House, informing Ontarians exactly where we are at. I appreciate the Premier's caution in expressing those agreements, that they're tentative and may be understood a little differently by different people at this time, but I appreciate that he felt it was important Ontarians know what's going on, as opposed to some other processes they've had.

I ask him to strongly give serious consideration to ensuring that Ontarians have an opportunity, through a referendum, to support an agreed-upon package. If there is not a national referendum, that would mean there would be a provincial referendum, as other provinces have already agreed to. I continue to urge the Premier in that direction. I do not think politicians who are concerned about a referendum need at all fear the judgement of the people. If in good faith and goodwill we negotiate the best possible agreement we can, then I am confident the people of this province and this country will support it.

I say as well that the mood today is very much on the side of resolving the issue, resolving it in a positive manner. Ontarians, even though I have to probe them -- they do not bring up the Constitution when we talk about it -- do not look for the breakup of this country.

Our caucus will continue to work with you, Mr Premier. We'll work with the Ontario delegation. By working together, I know it is within Canadians to develop a document that will help this great country realize its potential instead of being a barrier to our achieving that potential.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I neglected to indicate in my remarks, because I wasn't there myself in the capital city of New Brunswick, that the member for Ottawa-Rideau was there representing the Liberal Party. She's also been a very active member of the select committee for a number of years. I want to thank her as well for her participation and I apologize to her publicly for having failed to list her among those who are to be celebrated and commended today.

1500

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): If we can turn to a different but not exactly new topic, I will address my question to the Premier. We are all very well aware the Premier went to the governing council of the New Democratic Party this weekend to get permission in order to change his Sunday shopping legislation in the ways he knows it must be changed.

We understand that some 90% of the governing council voted against the proposed changes. Clearly the Premier did not get the permission he was seeking. I would ask the Premier if he can tell us what he now intends to do with his Sunday shopping legislation and when we can expect him to bring in the changes that he knows are still needed.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's certainly true that there was a meeting of the provincial council of the New Democratic Party on the weekend. I'm sorry the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party weren't there, but there you are.

The leader refers to a certain vote tally. I will only tell her that it was a very full discussion and a full debate and that both sides were fully expressed. To the best of my recollection there was no actual vote count at the end of the discussion.

Let me say that she also, I think, characterized it as an attempt by me to ask this group's permission to do something or other. That was not the nature of the discussion at all. It was a part of a very natural consultation, which takes place in a democracy, where we are all here as leaders of political parties and where from time to time our parties have regular meetings. We're going to be having another one later on in the month of June. That kind of consultation is perfectly natural.

Now, as to what the government is going to do with respect to the Sundays issue, I think I can simply tell the honourable member what I told the public after the meeting and what I told the public before the meeting, that obviously the government is continuing to monitor and review the application of the existing law and that when we have something to announce with respect to that we will let you know.

Mrs McLeod: There are not many occasions on which I would have enjoyed spending a beautiful Saturday afternoon at a meeting of the NDP governing council, but I would certainly have enjoyed an invitation to participate in that one, at least to hear the debate itself.

While the NDP and the members of this caucus and government go back and forth with their seemingly endless and anguished philosophical debate, I think it's only too possible for us to not realize how serious the situation is in this province. It was just last week that the Hudson's Bay Co announced the loss of 60 jobs, stating there is no question that the lack of Sunday shopping has certainly played a major role. If that doesn't get results shortly, there probably will be more of this.

The Premier's lack of leadership on this issue is unprecedented. While he dithers there are retailers going bankrupt, there are employees losing their jobs and municipalities are in an absolute quandary as they await the NDP announcement of the week. I would ask, Mr Speaker, in saying to the Premier that retailers need to know what he's going to do to prevent further job losses, will he recognize how urgent this situation is and will he act now to ensure that municipalities have a real freedom of choice to open their stores on Sunday to prevent further job losses?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the advice and certainly, if I may say so, fully anticipated the criticism. I think perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, if she were being fair, would recognize that all three parties in the House have held government since the mid-1970s. All have wrestled with this issue as public opinion has changed and evolved, and I can honestly say to the leader that we continue to look at this situation very closely and are obviously continuing to monitor the application of the current law and the response of the various retailers and the private sector to it.

I would also say to her that I'm also hearing from a number of businesses -- I think it's only fair to report this directly to her; indeed I think it was the member for St George-St David who referred to the situation of a so-called corner store, what I think he referred to as mom-and-pop operations -- in terms of their response to the difficulty.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole refers in a pejorative way to backflips. I want to say to the honourable member that we have to assess the application of the current law and that we have to assess the balances that can fairly be struck. Any government has a responsibility to do this and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mrs McLeod: That simply sounds like a very long definition of the word "stall."

If the Premier is still looking for advice, I would suggest that he simply address the realities of today, which I think he understands very well, although he does not seem to be responding to them. The realities today are that 70% of Ontarians want to see Sunday shopping, that there are countless students who are going to be unemployed this summer who would like to have the job opportunities Sunday work would bring and that retailers need to be able to open their stores on Sundays to combat the effects of the recession, which is putting so many of them out of business.

I would ask the Premier simply to assure the people of this province that he will respond to the stated interests of 70% of the people of this province, the wishes of students looking for summer jobs, the retailers who need to open for their economic survival. Will he finally take a leadership role on this issue and withdraw what has clearly been shown to be unworkable and unenforceable legislation and start to end the utter frustration everyone is feeling?

Hon Mr Rae: I listened carefully to the comments that are being made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I can only tell her that what she has to say and what the various members of the Liberal Party have to say, in all their wonderful variety, will of course be taken into account in any review by the government.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier: I would ask the Premier if he can explain why he has refused to meet with the Daily Bread Food Bank despite numerous requests, such as the one in this letter, which is dated April 21, 1992.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have not refused to meet with the Daily Bread Food Bank. I've not ever refused to meet with the Daily Bread Food Bank. There may be a problem with exactly when that can happen, and I have encouraged them and encouraged the Minister of Community and Social Services to meet with them as soon as possible. I have never refused to meet with the Daily Bread Food Bank.

Mrs McLeod: I'm glad that the Premier was at least aware that the Daily Bread Food Bank had made a particular request to meet with him in order to accept, on behalf of his government, the used food bags that have been prepared with comments from contributors. It's our understanding that similar requests were made to the federal government and that the federal government responded by receiving those bags within a week of the request being made and that this government, if not in fact refusing, at least has not seen fit to carry out that meeting yet and, as I understand it, the next meeting -- the only meeting -- is scheduled into July.

It would seem to us that this government that was going to get rid of food banks within a year now seems surprisingly reluctant to even meet with people from the food bank community to hear what their concerns are, and I would ask the Premier why his government feels it no longer needs to listen to the people of this province on a problem that has grown absolutely out of control. Further, why did they not keep a commitment that was made in this House on April 14, 1992, to meet with these people to begin to seek immediate and achievable solutions to the food bank problem?

Hon Mr Rae: I indicated, I think, in answers to questions the member has previously asked -- and I'm interested that her first question is, "Why have you refused to meet with them?" and then in her preamble to her second question she admits that I didn't refuse to meet with them. So she knew that when she made the allegation in the House with respect to the situation.

I've said in the House and in answer to the request that was made earlier by the member that I was asking the Minister of Community and Social Services to meet with them as soon as possible. That remains the case. I will try to meet with people and I will make every effort to meet with people. I've tried to be as accessible as possible in terms of time, and I will continue to do that, and I've urged the minister of Comsoc to meet with them as soon as possible, and continue to do that.

Mrs McLeod: In fact I was listening very carefully to the Premier's first response to my question, in which he denied that he had refused to meet with the food bank people. Our understanding from the food bank people was that the Premier himself was unwilling to meet with them in order to receive the food bags they wanted to present and that he asked the Minister of Community and Social Services to meet with them and that a meeting has not yet taken place and is not likely to take place until July. I was simply acknowledging the Premier's interpretation that this is not a refusal. It simply seems to be an unwillingness to meet, or a fact of being too busy to meet with people concerned about the food bank issues.

I'll just take a moment, if I may, since the Premier did not have time to meet with the food bank people, to ask one of the pages to deliver these bags to the Premier so he will in fact have an opportunity to read the comments of people who have made a contribution to trying to deal with this growing problem.

We wonder if the reason the government is so reluctant to meet with the food bank people is because it simply doesn't want to acknowledge how grim the reality is out there, or is it because it simply has no response to the kinds of concerns these people are raising?

I would tell the Premier, since obviously he has not had a chance to read the comments, of just one of those comments he can read on the bags. This is a quote from one of the individuals, who said, "It's food, not empty words, that feeds people's empty stomachs."

1510

We need action to create jobs; we need action to keep the already working working; we need action to stop allowing business to close. As the unemployment situation grows, as more and more people are forced to use food banks and as people from the food bank community desperately seek at least a meeting to be able to discuss what response this government could make, I ask the Premier how he intends to respond to these concerns.

Hon Mr Rae: We think we are responding.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Well, you're not.

Hon Mr Rae: The member may disagree, and she's certainly entitled to disagree, and for purposes of partisan debate in this House, I'm not surprised that she would. But I think if any fairminded, objective person looked at what we have done in this government the last year and a half with respect to dealing with our resources, focusing our resources in as fair a way as possible, looking hard at what we've done with respect to the minimum wage, with respect to pay equity, with respect to the action we've taken on wage protection -- things the previous government never even looked at, never even considered, was unprepared to deal with, that piled up during its time, and it had more money coming in than it knew what to do with.

We are now facing a situation where the Liberal Party on one day says, "Spend, spend, spend," and on the next day is slamming us for the size of the deficit. We have to manage this problem. We are doing what we can to focus attention on those who need it most, and we will continue to do so.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We have lost nearly 1,000 retail businesses in the past year. Last week the Bay in Toronto laid off 60 clerks and supervisors. Mr Premier, every day you vacillate on the issue of Sunday shopping we lose millions more dollars to border communities. We understand the Premier has a problem, we understand he got his marching orders from the council on the weekend, and he perhaps wishes to challenge those. Could the Premier tell us this: When can we expect a definitive statement on Sunday shopping one way or the other in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can only say in response to the question from the leader of the third party, which is identical in substance to the one I've just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, that we are continuing to monitor the application of the current law and that obviously we are talking intensively to people who are in the industry and to consumers, getting various aspects of public opinion to get a sense of what people think is the fairest outcome.

Mr Harris: Do you think it's fair, Premier, to send out signals to business -- one day your Solicitor General says, "We're going to be tough on Sunday shopping and enforce the law." The next day he says, "Oh, the police might not have time to charge them this Sunday." One day your Treasurer sends out the signal: "Well, you know, it's under active reconsideration. We can read the polls. We know what 70% of the people want." The next day he says, "Oh, we're going to enforce the law."

Do you think it's fair we send out these signals that, well, you know, maybe the law is kind of unworkable and unfair and then at the same time we continue to persecute Paul Magder, whose only crime is fulfilling what 70% of people in this province want, and that is to be able to shop on Sunday? Premier, do you think that's fair? Do you think it's fair to Paul Magder? Do you think it's fair to businesses to say one thing one day and another thing the next day? Do you think it's fair to keep sending out all those mixed signals?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure an enterprising researcher, if he wanted to know what vacillation, change, different opinions and the prosecution of some and not of others looks like, would only have to look at the positions taken by the Conservative Party of Ontario on this issue over the last 10 years.

The member has been here for slightly longer than I have. His record of service in the Legislature is a little longer than mine, but we're both roughly at the 10- or 11-year mark in terms of our membership in this Legislature. I can recall differing positions being taken by the government of which he was a member: speculation by Mr Grossman, the Leader of the Opposition subsequent to 1985, then the report that came out from your member from Oakville, who came out with a very different position, and then the position which was taken by your party in the by-election which elected the member for London North in 1987. I can remember a whole variety of positions.

I will readily admit to the member opposite that obviously opinion in the province is divided and managing this issue has proven difficult for whatever government was in power. We're doing the very best we can to resolve this question.

Mr Harris: I'm not sure the people of Ontario are looking for the answer from the Premier as to what others have done for 42 years. I think they elected you to govern.

Let me say very unequivocally, as leader of my party, that my caucus favours wide-open Sunday shopping. That's our position. That is my position as leader, that is what I would do if I were Premier, and that position is very clear. Let there be no doubt about it: That is the position our caucus has taken. Our caucus has taken positions, articulated them and put them out for all to see and has not vacillated.

Mr Premier, given the marching orders you got from your council, the ones who put you in as Premier, as leader, and the ones who guarantee you the money -- your caucus is widely split on this and you obviously can't come to an agreement -- would you not agree with me that you have an obligation, in the absence of your own leadership, to at least present the matter for a free vote in this Legislature?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party says he would prefer it if I didn't bring up all the different positions the Conservative Party has taken over the years. I'm sure he would prefer that I didn't remind people of the fact that this issue wasn't instantly or magically resolved when his party was in government and when he was a minister of the crown. It wasn't magically resolved when the former government was in power. It is something we are still dealing with as a government. I will say to the honourable member that any views he presents will obviously be taken into account.

Mr Harris: You can bring up the 42-year record. I'll tell you, it looks pretty good across the province. Bring it up every day because it will help me in 1994 and 1995. If, instead of giving a free vote or answering the question, you want to refer to the 42-year record, I'm happy to have you do that.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Last week my office received a phone call from a Toronto woman who had attempted to lodge a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. When she phoned that office last Tuesday, no one was interested in hearing about her situation. Last September the Minister of Citizenship announced $6.4 million to assist the commission in dealing with complaints. That was eight months ago. Can the Premier explain to me why no one would hear the woman's case last Tuesday?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the leader of the third party would say it would be fair for me to refer the instant case to the minister and ask her to respond. She is not here today. Obviously I can't respond to the particulars of the case without knowing the particulars of the case, except to say that of course we expect the commission to respond in situations and we hope and expect it will do so.

Mr Harris: My office contacted the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the woman's behalf. We were told by two separate commission staff that the commission does not take complaints on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that this in fact is government policy, that this was a new policy brought into place by this government and that it has been in place now for a year.

Premier, this bureaucratic insensitivity is unacceptable for a commission charged with eliminating discrimination in this province. Will you take steps immediately to rectify this ridiculous situation where complainants are told, "Sorry, you can't complain on Tuesday and Thursday"?

Hon Mr Rae: I will certainly undertake to inquire into all the particulars that have been raised by the leader of the third party.

1520

Mr Harris: The Premier will know this is not the first time we've heard complaints about the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In fact, it's getting to the point where people feel it is hopeless to lay complaints at all. We have a problem with the commission.

You and the Liberals, by the way, have thrown about $10 million at this problem since 1988, yet no one can make a complaint on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The staff themselves are not happy campers at the Human Rights Commission. The staff themselves are frustrated with a policy that goes against the very spirit for which they were hired, the very spirit of the commission. The problems seem to be getting worse. The more millions you throw at it, the worse the problem is.

Will you agree with me in this, that throwing more money without looking at the actual policies in place and the direction of the Human Rights Commission is not going to make the situation any better, and will you personally investigate what is going on at the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

Hon Mr Rae: I thank the member for the question, together with the member for Mississauga South, who sits behind him, who has pointed out problems with respect to the Human Rights Commission over the years when we were in opposition together. Since that time she's persisted, even when we formed the government, to continue to raise these issues.

I would say to the honourable member that the fact that there are problems at the Human Rights Commission is precisely why we've appointed Mary Cornish to give us a report as soon as possible with respect to administrative and other broad questions with respect to why there have been problems over the years and what we can do about them in terms of improving the workings of the board and of the commission, as well as looking at the question you've raised, which is, is there a connection -- there must be -- between the substantive question of the substance of the law and the Human Rights Code and the degree of the administrative problems which the commission continues to have? It has them now, it had them before and it's had them for some time. It needs to be resolved and we will certainly continue to look at it. I will, as I say, look into the particulars that have been raised by the leader of the third party.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also to the leader of the government and it concerns job opportunities for young Ontarians, particularly as they face the summer of 1992.

Mr Premier, your own government has just released a report on summer employment prospects for young Ontarians between the ages of 15 and 24. This report, released just a very few days ago, tells us that young people in this province will face the toughest time they've faced in over 10 years. I spent last week travelling around eastern Ontario, and more and more young people expressed to me their despair and their despondency at what they were being told as to what was available or, more important, what was not available for employment this summer.

I would ask you, Mr Premier, what specific measures will you undertake to address the very bleak employment prospects facing tens of thousands of young Ontarians who are coming out of high school or out of college or university, looking for either a summer job or a first job? Your own report indicates that youth unemployment this summer will be higher than at any point in the last 11 years, higher even than the worst of the recession in 1982-83.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say in all sincerity to the member that I appreciate the question. There are some things we're doing which I'm sure I can tell him about; I don't know whether he will think it's enough. I don't think it's enough, and it's precisely because I don't think it's enough that I've asked the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to give us a report as soon as possible with respect to youth employment programs in the province. She's been having intensive meetings with a number of groups, including municipalities and the private sector, and we've had a number of very positive meetings with the private sector to address this problem.

I would point out that the Futures program, at nearly $100 million, will provide about 25,000 young people with jobs. The Environmental Youth Corps will employ about 3,000 young people, at $11 million. Youth employment counselling centres will provide counselling and job placement of about 33,000 clients, with an allocation of $7.8 million. Youth venture capital programs will create about 5,000 jobs in new businesses created by young people. The summer trades Experience program will serve about 450 youths, with an allocation of $500,000. Summer employment and part-time Experience programs assist youth who are at risk of becoming dependent on social assistance, and the school workplace apprenticeship program is being expanded to help more young people. That, we think, will help about 1,000 people.

Having said that, let me say to the member that I don't think that's enough. It's precisely because it's not enough and precisely because the situation we face is unprecedented that I've asked my parliamentary assistant to give me a report, which she will do. I know it's coming very soon. As soon as I have that report from her, we are then going to be in a position to respond and do more in cooperation with the private sector --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- municipalities and, I hope, the federal government.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the Premier's concern, but he has a report, a very good report, provided by his own Ministry of Labour, which takes into account a number of the factors he's referred to.

Many of us are finding that in fact there are fewer jobs in those categories of Futures and the Environmental Youth Corps this year than last. In fact, the report released last week by the Ministry of Labour says, among other things, "The labour market for young people in Ontario in the summer of 1992 will be a very difficult one because of the cyclical downturn and fewer number of job opportunities."

Those young people are on the streets now, Mr Premier. You have an excellent report. My question remains: What specific measures for the tens of thousands of young people are you prepared to contemplate, not in August or September 1992 but on May 25, 1992, when those young people are coming out of school, out of college and out of university and need the jobs, which is now?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate very much the directness of the member and I fully support his intentions. I can tell him that we will be responding. When he asks, "Will you be responding in August or September?" the answer to that is no, we will be responding before the summer begins. We will be responding as aggressively as we can within some limits, in terms of what we can afford to do because of the overall financial situation facing the government.

But we certainly do recognize that the problem facing our young people today and the immediate problem of youth unemployment is a priority for the government; it's one we have to respond to as a government. As I say, we want to mobilize the private sector and others in helping us to deal with it.

I appreciate the directness with which he's raised the question.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, you certainly are aware, I know, of the recent fund-raising done by TVOntario. This was their major event for this spring. During that time the new director of TVOntario, Mr Herrndorf, talked in an interview about his new style and the fact that he was executing spending controls; in other words, everything in the ship was fine, finally, in TVOntario.

I have here a copy of an advertisement that was handed out in Cannes, France. It's an ad in Buyer Profile, apparently handed out to delegates and visitors to Cannes. In this ad it talks about: "A last call for entries honouring outstanding achievement in educational television. TVOntario is pleased to invite producers of educational television programming from Canada and around the world to enter the 1992 TVOntario awards competition. Winners in each of six categories will receive $5,000 and the grand prize winner will receive $50,000."

Madam Minister, do you think this kind of promotion and competition is a wise use of the taxpayers' money in this province through the government grants and the pledges of the public in support of TVOntario?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I have every support for Mr Peter Herrndorf. As the member has mentioned, he is certainly a very good appointment to this position. He handles a majority budget. His is an agency of the ministry. As such, I am pleased to see that he is making some changes in TVO.

I am not aware of this particular advertisement. Obviously an agency does have a board of directors that the government appoints, but it is the board of directors that runs the agency per se. I can find out more information about this particular advertisement if she wishes and report back to the member.

1530

Mrs Marland: This minister can't palm this off on the board of directors. The minister stood in this House last year in answer to my questions and assured the people of Ontario that they didn't have to worry any more about the misspending and all the excesses that were going on in TVOntario because Mr Bernard Ostry, of course, was going, and then finally he was gone, and you're not even answering this question today.

It's obvious that the Bernie Ostry legend lives on. I'm not talking about Mr Herrndorf; I'm talking about you and your personal commitment to the people of Ontario. I'm simply asking, with the auditor's report identifying excesses in spending last year, how you can condone this kind of promotion worldwide of a television network in Ontario whose mandate is educational broadcasting in Ontario. If you think it's okay for Mr Herrndorf to authorize this kind of spending, that's your opinion; it's not ours. We're concerned that you go out to the public, ask people to pledge support and then go and spend money to the tune of $80,000 in a worldwide competition that is not within the mandate of TVOntario.

I ask you, Madam Minister, what you plan to do about this kind of promotion worldwide that has nothing to do with the taxpayers and is of no benefit to the people who have pledged their funds in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Haslam: TVO is known worldwide; I will agree with that. They do show many different videos and films at TVO. The board has certainly addressed the auditor's report. I and the board have worked together in addressing the concerns of the auditor's report. The new chair is certainly capable of taking TVO into the next century. I have already indicated to the member that I will check into this particular advertisement for her, and I will report back to the member.

FUEL SUBSTITUTION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, in the riding of Durham East there are a lot of people very unhappy over the cost of electric heating. They say there was some incentive program that they thought was going to allow them to get off electric heating and use more energy-efficient heating. I'm asking you, Mr Minister, on behalf of the people I represent, have you got a program? Is something going to happen to help these folks get off electric heating?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): The member, I would assume, is referring to some of the debate that has gone on in this House around Bill 118 over the last year and the ability of Ontario Hydro to participate in fuel substitution programs.

I should inform the member, first of all, that Bill 118 has not passed yet, so currently Hydro does not yet have the legal authority to participate in fuel substitution programs. There are no incentives presently in place. Ontario Hydro is involved in discussions with the gas industry and other stakeholders in the energy sector who are involved in other alternative fuel sources that could adequately replace the use of electric heat. We hope to see some programs in place, but we first need to see Bill 118 pass.

Mr Mills: Mr Minister, the people in Durham East are getting testier by the minute. When can we expect Bill 118 to be passed? Can you give me some --

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, as you well know, that's something I can't predict precisely for the member. The members across the way have made it clear that they weren't in any rush to see Bill 118 pass. It was introduced last June by my colleague the member for Peterborough and still has not received third reading. We'll be pushing to get it passed as quickly as we can this spring and get on with the implementation of programs.

USE OF OPP VEHICLES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, we have some folks who were quite shocked, on the morning of May 17, to tell us they saw an OPP helicopter landing in the town park in Portland in eastern Ontario, at which time they saw you disembark from that OPP helicopter and promptly jump into a boat for a short ride out to your family island in Big Rideau Lake. Then, in the afternoon on May 18, apparently you were brought back ashore, at which time the same OPP helicopter picked you up and whisked you away to places unknown.

Premier, can you confirm to this House that indeed those travel arrangements to your family cottage are accurate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can, and perhaps, since you will no doubt have a supplementary, I can describe them to the member.

When I took office I was told by the Secretary of Cabinet and by the head of the OPP, as well as by my security staff, that there would be times and occasions when taking the OPP helicopter would be the only way I could get any time available or be able to be with my family on short notice.

When I returned from Japan, I was due to go to a meeting with the governors of the Great Lakes states the next day and I had not seen my children for about eight days. For a 24-hour trip to my family cottage, I did make use of the OPP helicopter, which I'm told on reliable information I have used about a quarter or a third -- about to 20% to 25% -- as much as previous holders of this office, including the former leader of your party and the former Premier of the province.

I will say to the House that balancing time is a hard choice. I use an OPP car. For my trips I have a government car I use. It takes a significant period of time to get to my cottage. It was the long weekend. It was frankly the quickest and fastest way for me to do it.

Even though I knew full well and know full well that any use by me of that plane or of the Ministry of Natural Resources plane, which I also use from time to time, will be subject to criticism, I will also say to the honourable member that -- I have to think about this carefully in what I say, but there are really very few moments a Premier gets to spend time with his family. If I ever felt that a use of the helicopter was in any way taking away from its use in any other circumstance, I would never use it. But even though no doubt there will be a headline tomorrow and I knew full well what the headline might or might not be, I also have to say to the member that in living in this glass house in which I live as the leader of the government, I do have to have some family time and occasionally I will be using the OPP plane and occasionally I will be using the MNR plane. If the member wants to criticize me for it or other members want to challenge me for it, I say I really don't think any other person holding this office would exercise his or her responsibilities in a different way, and I've checked it with the head of the OPP, I've checked it with the Secretary of Cabinet --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I've been as careful as I can with respect to the use of these planes, and I will say to the honourable member that that's the way I've decided to do it. It's been a very conscious decision on my part.

Mr Mahoney: The Premier would understand that it's not terribly significant if one member or a couple of members of this place decide to criticize him for use of an OPP helicopter. What is really significant is that the people in Portland, Ontario, were extremely shocked to see this event take place: landing in the park in the town and then going out the next day.

I can appreciate the difficulties of scheduling all members of this House have, and the Premier would have even greater difficulty. Our concern, however, I might add, stems from the fact that this government has shown no economic leadership, that it has made cutbacks in OPP transfer payments, that it has made cutbacks to the OPP in the service levels all across the province, yet the Premier feels it's appropriate to use the OPP helicopter as a taxi service to his private family retreat. I don't think that's proper use, and I think anybody in public office has to make arrangements to get together with his family and should not be using something as important as public transportation, in the form of an OPP helicopter, in these times of constraint, to be whisked off to a cottage in eastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Rae: I can honestly say that I think I've given as clear an account as I can to the House. I've given the answer that I can. The good people of Portland, who have known me since I was five years old and who have seen me grow up from a small boy to the Premier of the province, will have a way of expressing themselves with respect to the member's question, as will the people of the province, as they reflect on what is involved in being Premier and the balances you have to strike. I've made my decision, I've given an explanation to the House, and that's all I can say to the honourable member.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I think we all become better members when we spend more time with our families.

1540

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, last week you made an announcement -- it was Thursday, in fact -- that children's aid societies, assaulted women and the services they require, and our citizens with developmental disabilities will only receive a 0.5% budget increase. It is worthy of note, Minister, that you chose a time when no one was in this House and no one was able to respond to this announcement, but obviously the reaction has been swift and it has been severe. Some organizations that are providing essential services in this province are saying they will be devastated by your decision.

Minister, you will be familiar with the fact that the Child and Family Services Act, section 15, details at length a whole series of required protections for children in this province, mandated by law and administered by children's aid societies. Can you ensure, Madam Minister, having made this statement last week, the announcement of a 0.5% increase, that children in Ontario will be protected and that vulnerable children will not continue to be at risk as a result of your announcement?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member aptly expresses concern and certainly knows from the discussions we have had in this House how concerned we are about maintaining services in the face of the budgetary difficulties we face. I have been working with about 7,000 transfer payment agencies that my ministry funds to try to encourage them to look at this time as a time that's very different from times in the past. So it is not without warning that those transfer payment agencies received the information last Wednesday of the transfer payments.

In terms of mandatory services for children, the process of budgeting we have with children's aid societies is currently under review. There is a process called the exceptional circumstance review. The base budget from last year for those societies will have a 0.5% increase to it and then the exceptional circumstance review money that was allocated this year goes into their base budgets on top of that. So that will relieve some of the pressure. In addition, the member will note from the estimates that there is provision for further exceptional circumstance review during this current fiscal year while we are reorganizing the funding of children's aid societies.

Mr Jackson: The minister quotes estimates. The minister will also be aware of the document that was released the day before the treasury board meeting, that she has yet to find millions and millions of dollars of additional cuts she's going to be required to make. So the prospects of being able to assist CASs are pretty remote or pretty dim at best.

Minister, virtually every children's aid society in Ontario is currently operating with a large deficit. Although there's been some recognition of this, the fact still remains that deficits are a function of increased demand, and this is a legitimate demand. Earlier, all parties in this House referred to how vulnerable children are and the requirement to ensure their protection. In Halton, for example, we're looking at an 11.5% increase in the case load of children at risk: physically abused children up 60%; sexually abused children up 35%; foetal alcohol and drug-dependent newborn children up significantly in the greater Toronto area -- all CAS.

Given those circumstances of increased demand, how can you assure this House that you're going to be able to deal with the requirements of the law to protect children, which is your mandate and your responsibility as minister, and which your government has been duly charged with, to protect those children? How are you going to ensure their safety?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly don't doubt that it's a challenge, and certainly we will be working very strongly with our associations; in fact, we have been over the last year and a half, because this is not a new problem. This is a problem that associations have experienced again and again, and we recognize that the way in which the societies are funded is completely out of whack with the kind of work they are being required to do under the Child and Family Services Act. The funding formula was never changed when the act was changed, so the requirements are not in any way met by the former government's formula. We know that's a challenge.

We are working with the children's aid societies. Unfortunately, some of the non-mandatory services of the societies may well suffer. But they know they have an obligation and we know we have an obligation to meet those mandatory requirements, and I can assure the member that we will continue to do so.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Right now in Kitchener-Waterloo we have a group called the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Workers' Group and it has been operating on a shoestring. It's my understanding that there are 20 such groups across the province that are trying to help injured workers in various capacities because now they've pretty well reached their limit and they don't know where to go. Is there any intention to provide bloc funding to these groups that are operating on a shoestring so they can provide the assistance to the injured workers across the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The injured workers' groups in the province of Ontario have within the last two or three weeks approached our ministry as to whether or not there was funding that could be available and a role that they could play in terms of some of the problems of the Workers' Compensation Board and some of the service problems. We are taking a serious look at that. I could not give them any commitment in this year's budget, but we did say we would take a serious look at it and discuss it with them over the next few weeks.

ÉDUCATION EN FRANÇAIS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Ma question s'adresse aujourd'hui au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Monsieur le ministre, vous avez assisté cet après-midi à la manifestation qui s'est produite devant la porte principale. Étaient regroupés des jeunes Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes qui étaient sensiblement nerveux et qui voulaient connaître davantage les sentiments que vous avez envers le réseau des collèges francophones en Ontario.

Vous avez demandé à la communauté francophone d'être encore patiente. Pourtant, vous avez réaffirmé, lors du Sommet de la francophonie qui a eu lieu en juin 1991, votre engagement envers un réseau de collèges francophones. À ce moment-là, vous avez annoncé que, «Dans quelques semaines, vous aurez de mes nouvelles.»

Ça fait 52 semaines de ça et la communauté francophone attend encore. Finies les belles paroles, les belles promesses. Monsieur le ministre, je vous demande : quand allez-vous passer à l'action ?

L'hon Gilles Pouliot (ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Jamais je n'aurais cru, comme ça s'est produit ce matin pendant cette journée de printemps ensoleillée, voir nos jeunes Franco-Ontariens venir ici nous rappeler, non par dizaines mais par centaines, le succès colossal de la Cité collégiale, où on avait invité tout le monde et encore plus s'étaient présentés.

Ils nous ont rappelé aussi qu'à l'échelle de l'inscription pour septembre prochain, nous sommes déjà à l'excès de 5500 jeunes Franco-Ontariens qui demandent non moins que leur place sous le soleil, la chance d'être comme les autres, et qu'on leur donne les outils, à travers un système d'éducation, pour leur permettre de s'intégrer économiquement et de se défendre en société.

Maintenant, en guise de conclusion à la question de mon collègue, nous évoluons ici un effort collectif. Ce qui se produit, c'est que nos amis au fédéral, avec nous à l'échelle provinciale, parce qu'ici on parle de partage et nous sommes enfin arrivés -- nous avons rencontré, avec quelques collègues, M. de Cotret à Ottawa il y a deux semaines -- à un stage crucial de négociations. L'important ici, c'est la question de partage. Mais ce qui est encore plus important, c'est la dimension humaine, et de plus en plus important aussi, c'est la chance sous le soleil pour nos jeunes Franco-Ontariens. Le dossier avance ; on s'en occupe.

1550

M. Hans Daigeler (Nepean) : Ministre, c'est encore des paroles. On veut de l'action. Comme toujours, vous déployez toute votre éloquence, mais vos mots sont vides.

Faut-il que je lui rappelle que c'est son gouvernement qui a mis à pied 78 enseignants franco-ontariens il y a deux semaines seulement ? C'est ce ministre qui nous a promis de prendre une décision concernant les collèges francophones en juin dernier. Rien n'a été dit encore dans cette Chambre sur le financement et les échéances de l'établissement d'un collège dans le nord ou dans le sud.

Les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes veulent une réponse. Ils veulent de l'action et pas seulement des paroles. Dites-nous, Monsieur le ministre : est-ce que votre promesse va s'ajouter à la liste déjà très longue des promesses non tenues, voire rompues, de votre gouvernement ?

L'hon M. Pouliot : Nous aussi avons hâte de voir le dossier aboutir. Nous sommes fort conscients que dans notre communauté franco-ontarienne, c'est le dossier qui presse le plus. C'est celui qui est le plus important, et le plus épineux aussi, bien sûr. Le rapport Bordeleau nous a dit deux choses. Suite, encore une fois, au succès de la Cité collégiale, le rapport Bordeleau y ajoutait et reconnaissait le besoin d'avoir deux autres collèges, l'un dans le nord et aussi -- vous l'avez deviné -- l'un dans le sud/sud-ouest de l'Ontario.

Je vous demanderais, avec tout le respect qu'on vous doit, d'être un peu plus patient. Nous en sommes rendus à un stage crucial de négociations. Il faut regarder l'avenir avec confiance. Nous, on le fait de notre côté ; on vous invite à nous joindre.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On May 7, all three parties and members in the House agreed to a resolution that I had tabled in the Legislature for guidelines on emissions: that they be enhanced and extended in the Countdown Acid Rain program.

To date we have seen a tremendous improvement by the four large emitters. Falconbridge, Ontario Hydro, Algoma Steel and Inco have successfully reduced their emission levels to significantly decrease the amount of acid gases entering the atmosphere. Indeed, we commend them for their efforts. Yet after 1994, there is no schedule for the reduction of acid gases. We're looking for a schedule to be developed as a guideline for industry at that time. There is a great need for those guidelines to be established and for some way of restricting the amount of acid gas being exposed in the atmosphere to be put in place. I ask the minister: Do you support the resolution that we passed in the Legislature on May 7 on the Countdown Acid Rain program being extended?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I regret that I don't have the precise wording of the resolution in front of me, so whether I support it in its entirety or not I can't at this moment say.

I want to say to the member that I certainly support the principle of continuing with the very effective work begun by my predecessor the member for St Catharines in dealing with acid rain in this province. I'm delighted that, as the member has noted, the four major emitters have met the schedules and have committed themselves to significantly reducing their emissions post-1994. We are in the process of developing a comprehensive approach to emissions for sources beyond the four big ones post-1994.

Mr Cousens: That's really what the resolution dealt with. I'm disappointed the minister was not aware of the details of the resolution. To some degree, the resolution was based largely on committee work in which you were involved years ago when you were with the New Democrats in opposition. The fact of the matter is that this Legislature gave a strong statement of endorsement to those resolutions that there be a post-1994 strategy for this government on the Countdown Acid Rain program. That was the thrust of the resolution. Indeed, the four major polluters that have done something about it are only part of the problem. Those others have to begin to be dealt with.

If you support the intent -- primarily that's what a resolution on private members' day is all about -- of there being a post-1994 program, I'd like to urge upon you and your government to table legislation for amendments to the Countdown Acid Rain program to extend these emission guidelines to all emitters of acid gases. When will an action plan be tabled in the Legislature for a post-1994 Countdown Acid Rain program?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let there be no mistake. I entirely support the thrust of that resolution. Obviously there has to be an air strategy post-1994. What I intended to convey to the member in response to his first question was that we are currently in the throes of preparing just such a comprehensive strategy. I entirely concur that there has to be an action plan. I can assure him that one will be announced by my ministry as soon as we have completed the work within our ministry and consulted with my colleagues in both the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Northern Development about the large four emitters of the bulk of the acid gas emissions but also with respect to industries right across this province.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Attorney General. I'm grateful he has taken his seat. Last Friday, May 15, I had an opportunity to meet with some students and staff at Cobourg District Collegiate Institute West. They presented me with these 814 letters concerning the Arrive Alive grants from your ministry. I ask, please, that a page come and deliver them to the minister.

In recent years, with the assistance of the Ministry of the Attorney General, the CDCI West group of Students Against Driving Drunk, known as SADD, has been a very visible and active contributor in the effort to combat drinking and driving. The students have joined many other people right across this province to raise awareness of and to combat this serious social problem. I'm sure you will join me in congratulating them for their most successful efforts to date.

Now for the devastating news. This year the ministry drastically reduced the funding for this program. In the previous two years the students received $1,000 and $800 respectively. This year, Minister, you have slashed the funding to $250. That is 75% since you became Attorney General. Is it your intention, Minister, to eventually eliminate altogether what appears to be a winning battle by these students against impaired driving?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): It appears again that in answering an opposition member's question we have to refer to the facts. The program is expanding around the province. We are attempting to provide funds to more schools. That in part has led to situations where every school that has had funds in the past may not receive the funds this year that it had in the past. We're trying to stretch the budget we have to more schools.

I think it is elementary -- I think everyone in Canada, perhaps in North America, understands this -- that every government on the continent is stretching the available funds as far as it possibly can. We are doing that in individual programs in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I would say, given the funds we have available, we've done a wonderful job of stretching those funds to provide the best services we can to the most schools we can reach around the province.

1600

Mrs Fawcett: Minister, these students have built up good relationships. They have provided service from their dances all night long. This government could see fit to spend $2.5 million to move the cabinet offices to the Whitney Block and it could spend $1 million to advertise and install the NDP propaganda line, but it cannot give these students a few hundred dollars to continue their very important program.

How can you justify these cuts? What will you have me tell the students who have fought hard to protect Ontarians from car accidents and drinking-and-driving fatalities?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I've indicated, we are using the grants available through the Ministry of the Attorney General countermeasures office to reach more schools. We are doing more partnership work with more community interest groups and organizations than ever before.

I should again point out to the member opposite that the government, yes, does have to spend money from time to time in communicating with Canadians and Ontarians about some of the important issues it is involved in with respect to the economy and with respect to the Constitution. I would regard those as legitimate expenditures.

It's also true that this chamber we are in now is undergoing renovation. That's only responsible expenditure of taxpayers' money. It's only responsible maintenance of the buildings that are part of the public heritage of Ontario. For the member to complain about that I think is just clearly not on base and clearly distorts the actual issues we're trying to deal with.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that I would like to present from a number of people not only from my riding but other ridings throughout the rest of the province, and it reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs,

"Therefore, we the undersigned petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act;

"To encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all; and

"To ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I couldn't think of a better birthday gift for the Minister of Transportation than 130,000 petitions; it's his 50th birthday today. I have these petitions; anyway, this is part of that batch of 130,000:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession; and

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are incorrectly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding; and

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under this act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million in the greater Toronto area be revoked immediately."

Those are predominantly in the communities of Perth, Napanee and Smith Falls, and it has my signature of support.

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from the citizens of west Whitby to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the Committee of Concerned Citizens of West Whitby, representing Queen's Chase, Otter Creek and Macedonian Village, wish to protest the technically preferred route identified as DMZ by the Ministry of Transportation in the report entitled Summary Information on Evaluation and Analysis of Technically Preferred Route."

This technically preferred route is preferred by whom I do not know and technically in terms of what I don't know, because it is environmentally disastrous and socially abhorrent, affecting some 8,000 people who I have already cited where they are. I affix my name to that petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to present. It states as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has indicated it has plans to open gambling establishments in Niagara and other locations in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to abandon such plans for legalized gambling."

I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition and have affixed my signature as a sign of my support.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 30 Scarborough West constituents, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 30 persons opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent-freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which would be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here, signed by 22 constituents, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has indicated its plans to open gambling establishments in Niagara and other locations in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To abandon such plans for legalized gambling."

I affix my signature to the petition.

1610

CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by 20 employees of the Art Gallery of Ontario who live in my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned employees of the Art Gallery of Ontario, wish to express our grave concern over the proposed cutbacks to the AGO budget. If executed, these cutbacks would result not only in the scaling down of activities within the gallery, but in severing the services which the AGO provides throughout the province to the people of Ontario. For the past 25 years, the AGO has had a mandate as a cultural resource for the entire province. The proposed cutbacks do not merely undermine, but eliminate this mandate and negate the achievements of a quarter-century of commitment to the cultural growth of this province. As constituents of Eglinton, we urge Ms Poole to represent our concerns to the government of Ontario and to reiterate and renew our collective responsibility to the cultural heritage of this province and this country."

I have signed the petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition today, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 14 citizens of Lobo township in the county of Middlesex, who petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the report of the greater London arbitrator, Mr John Brant. Many of us in Middlesex have grave concerns about the size of the annexation recommendations within the report and would like to emphasize the importance of protecting agricultural land in the area of Middlesex county. This is an issue of utmost importance to all of us. I have signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by members of Asco Construction Ltd, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those investments."

I have signed my name to that.

I have a series of further petitions on the same subject matter, and I would just indicate -- one at a time? Thank you.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition signed by some of my constituents. It's opposing the introduction of any new tax on real estate gains. The whereases and the resolutions are the same as those of the member for Scarborough West. I will not read the entire petition, as it has been read twice.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 23 residents of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature as required.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a similar petition objecting to the greater London area annexation program, addressed to the Legislature:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have affixed my signature.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 18 constituents from the county of Middlesex, who urge the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the Brant report and ask this Legislature to please protect the agricultural land in the county of Middlesex by reconsidering the proposed area Mr Brant has recommended for annexation. I've signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by members of Scepter Mfg Co Ltd.

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I have affixed my signature.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition similar to the one from Durham West.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by individuals from Canada Culvert and Metal Products Ltd, which petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I have a third petition here signed by 35 residents of the township of Lobo in the county of Middlesex, who petition the Ontario Legislature to reject the Brant report and respectfully ask the Legislature of Ontario to consider the concerns of area farmers and the protection of farm land in Middlesex. I've signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CINQUEMANI HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act to revive Cinquemani Holdings Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY STANDARDS OFFICERS ACT, 1992

Mr Morrow moved, on behalf of Mr Christopherson, first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

1620

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): After extensive debate and in the absence of the minister, the Honourable Shelley Wark-Martyn, I move third reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

1639

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

Ayes -- 60

Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury);

O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 34

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Witmer.

House in committee of the whole.

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

Consideration of Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation / Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It gives me great pleasure actually to bring to the floor of this committee the last round of our discussion of amendments to Bill 121, the act to control rents in Ontario. I'd just like to say very briefly that we are dealing with a piece of legislation that I think is going to improve the situation for tenants in Ontario very markedly.

We have seen in the past and under existing legislation very large rent increases. I am daily signing letters to people who are bearing the brunt of those increases under existing legislation. Even though we brought in Bill 4 at the beginning of our term of office, there are still many people who are paying increases that were based on the application of the existing Bill 51 at a point before our government was sworn in.

Under the new legislation the maximum rent increase will be determined by a guideline and there will be no rent increase that will go beyond 3% above that rent control guideline. There is no provision in the new legislation for tenants to have to pay for luxury renovations or the costs of landlords' financing, which has been a very heavy burden for tenants in the past. The law will say landlords can apply to increase the rent above guideline, but only for necessary repairs, and where repairs are undertaken and an above-guideline increase is granted to a landlord, once the costs of those renovations are paid for those costs will be removed from the base rent so they won't be calculated year after year on an increased basis.

For the first time, tenants will also be able to make an application to reduce rents for inadequate maintenance in a very direct fashion under this legislation. If there are outstanding property standards orders against the rental building, the landlord will not be able to increase rents even by the guideline amount.

1650

On the other hand, I think what we are looking at is a piece of legislation that does permit landlords a reasonable rate of return. It allows them increases based on a guideline that reflects both the cost of inflation and an additional 2% element each year. Further, they can make application for above-guideline increases that can be carried forward for a total of three years. This means landlords will have scope within the legislation to operate their buildings in a satisfactory manner and provide for those costs, which will come from time to time in any rental building, that may be higher than guideline. All in all, we think it's a balanced package.

I'd like to indicate, as we begin discussion in committee of the whole House, that we will be proposing amendments. I know the other parties will too. Our amendments will touch on sections 1, 7, 13, 20, 15 -- sorry, I had that out of order -- 21, 22, 114, 115 -- here again I'm retracing -- 28, 39, 40, 49, 61, 62, 64 and 104.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Can I read that back, Minister?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, please.

The Chair: Sections 1, 7, 13, 20, 15, 21, 22, 114, 115, 28, 39, 40, 49, 61, 62, 64 and 104. Is that correct?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I hope so.

The Chair: Are there any other amendments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sorry to come back. Section 135, I believe, was missed in your recall.

The Chair: So you're adding section 135.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I too am quite pleased to see the end of this debate. Of the minister, the critic for the third party and myself, I think I'm the only survivor from when this legislation was first introduced in June 1991.

I have a number of amendments I have tabled with you on behalf of the Liberal caucus. I would just like to read out for you which sections are involved. The first amendment deals with the whole bill. Then we go to subsection 1(1) -- the Liberal caucus has two amendments to that subsection -- clause 3(1)(e), subsection 12(1), section 18.1, subsection 20(3), subsection 20(4), subsection 20(4.1), section 22.1, subsection 24(4), section 25, section 26, section 89.1 through section 89.14 -- I'm sorry, I gave the old numbering for that particular one; that would be section 95.1 through section 95.14, if you could strike out sections 89.1 through section 89.14, which was the old numbering -- clause 119(a), clause 120(3)(a), section 125.1 and section 129.1 through section 129.14.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have three amendments to present on behalf of our caucus. They are amendments to section 21, section 24 -- do you want the breakdown? It's subsection 21(6.1), subsection 24(4) and clause 29(2)(c.1). Those are the three amendments on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

Ms Poole: I am sorry. There was an oversight. There is one I did not read out. It is an amendment to sections 34 through 41.

Section 1:

The Chair: I will start with section 1.

Ms Poole: I have two amendments to subsection 1(1).

The Chair: Ms Poole moves that subsection 1(1) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by adding the following definition:

"'Board' means the Rent Review Appeals Board."

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I wonder if you would inquire of the critic for the official opposition whether she doesn't intend to move the amendment concerning the whole bill and the title first. Is that her intent?

Ms Poole: I did have a discussion with the officers of the table before we began about whether it was appropriate to move my amendment for the whole bill at the beginning or the end of the bill. I'm not quite sure whether in fact we resolved it. I'm happy to do whichever one, at the discretion of the Chair, you deem advisable.

1700

The Chair: Could you give me one minute?

On your motion, Ms Poole, if we amend the definition of the section, of course the whole bill would be amended; as long as you are aware of that. If you want debate it, I would ask you to move the amendment to the bill first.

Ms Poole: Fine, Mr Chair. I'd be happy to do that.

The Chair: The member for Mississauga South, do you have a point of order?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I was in error in giving you only three amendments. May I add the fourth amendment, which I should have mentioned in the summary before you started? We are now going to start speaking to the amendments, correct?

The Chair: Sure. Go ahead.

Mrs Marland: The other amendment I have is to subsection 135(1.1). That's the amendment that resulted in the government approving a suggestion that our caucus had, and I did not include that with my original three.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms Poole moves that the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by striking out "rent control" wherever it appears and substituting "rent review."

Do you have any comments, the member for Eglinton?

Ms Poole: Yes, Mr Chairman, indeed I do. The reason I have moved this amendment to the wording of the bill to strike out "rent control" and substitute for it the words "rent review" is that it has become very clear to us that this is not a bill of rent control. Any time you have a system where a landlord has the ability to go to a government body for increases above the guideline amount and, not only that, can go in several different categories, and when a government body is responsible for reviewing and approving these particular increases, then this is what you call a system of rent review.

I think we all remember the promise of rent control this government made during the last election; in fact, I think we all have the words memorized by now. It was to be one rent increase per year, geared to inflation and nothing else, and no special bonuses to landlords for capital or financing. That was the definition of this NDP government for rent control back in September 1990. That's what the tenants expected when they voted for this government.

So when tenants have seen what is an extremely convoluted, extremely complicated, extremely bureaucratic bill, which in this particular year, for instance, would allow an increase of up to 9% under the rules of this legislation, then I don't think they feel this government has delivered what it promised, which was real rent control. Instead, what we have is a system of rent review which, for all the government's protestations back when it was in opposition, is far more complicated and more bureaucratic than what was offered under the previous Bill 51.

When you look at what this bill has to offer -- it has now, I believe, up to 140 sections, surpassing the previous rent legislation, Bill 51, by some nine sections -- and when you see that this government, when in opposition, complained about how lengthy, unwieldy and complicated Bill 51 was in its form, this legislation has been quite a disappointment to the people of this province.

I believe in calling things as they are, and to me, this is not rent control. It is certainly not the rent control this government promised. I believe it would be more accurately portrayed if we called this rent review.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We will not support this amendment. In our view, this is a rent control bill and it will provide rent control. What it provides is a basis of determination of rents that includes an inflation component, based on actual inflationary increases landlords are experiencing in the operation of rental buildings, averaged over a three-year period. There's a portion of the guideline which is made up of that inflationary element at 55% of the total inflationary costs experienced by landlords. The guideline then also includes another 2%, and that's the guideline. It's known. It's a control.

Above that, a landlord must apply and the maximum a landlord may receive in an application in any given year is 3% above guideline. That is a control. We feel the bill is aptly named and we will continue calling it the rent control bill.

Ms Poole: I don't want to prolong this debate because we have many amendments to go through this week, but I would like to say to the minister that the problem is that the government can now call this rent control, but it has changed its definition of rent control this year from two years ago. That's where the difficulty lies, in that when tenants and landlords look at this legislation, it bears no resemblance to what was promised by this government as rent control back in 1990.

I have one piece of advice for the minister and for this government. In future, when you are making promises, whether they be related to housing legislation or any other legislation, there are two things I think are necessary: One, when you make the promise, ensure it is workable, and second, when you make the promise, make sure it is balanced to begin with. That is where this government has come into a great deal of difficulty, in that once it actually tried to take a look and implement its election promise, it found out it couldn't do that. Our aging housing stock would be in jeopardy if it indeed kept that promise. This is one of those cases when it's not whether the government actually implemented the promise, the question is whether this government should have made the promise to begin with. I think that's a good spot to leave this particular debate.

Mrs Marland: I wish to place some comments on the record, and they cover the amendment that is on the floor at this point in time as well.

Before turning to my concerns regarding the inadequate or absent definitions of several key terms in section 1 of Bill 121, I would like to talk briefly about this bill as it has been reported back from the standing committee on general government and the process by which the bill was debated and amended in that committee.

First, the House should note that this bill has been subject to over 250 amendments, almost all of which came from the government. Only one of the excellent and commonsense suggestions from our party was passed. That happened only because the NDP members had lost interest in the bill and there weren't enough members present in the committee to win the vote. Nor did they know enough about the proceedings and the rules of order that govern committee hearings: They could in fact have called for a 20-minute recess to call their members to the vote, but they were not familiar enough with the proceedings to know that was an option they had, and of course they lost the vote. Tremendous irony; this is the only reason we're here in the committee of the whole today, because the government wanted to reverse one amendment we won with the opposition party because its government members were not present in sufficient numbers to vote it down.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who moved that?

1710

Mrs Marland: We did. Now the government is threatening to retract our amendment, the new section 14.1, in the committee of the whole. Our amendment would allow a property owner to base an application for an above-the-guideline rent increase on an increase in financing costs since these are costs over which property owners have no control. Obviously if the property owner is coming up to renew his mortgage, we're not in this example talking about flipping and refinancing so that a property owner can make other investments. We're talking about the no-option situation where the financing arrangements for that property owner have now come due and the property owner has to seek new financing, and in the interim there may have been a tremendous increase in interest rates, which obviously property owners do not control. The government did not see fit to be even fair in considering that particular amendment.

Returning to the huge number of amendments, it has been virtually impossible to keep track of them all. Many a time in the standing committee on general government we could not proceed because of confusion over section numbers resulting from the vast number of amendments. We had second- and third-generation amendments which amended amendments. Confusion reigned supreme, patience wore thin and tempers certainly flared. The member for Yorkview tried to defend his minister and lighten the mood by telling corrupted versions of fairy tales, Robin Hood and The Three Little Pigs, in which property owners were equated to evil and tenants to goodness.

The Chair: Order. I would ask you to speak to the amendment, please.

Mrs Marland: I am speaking to the amendment, Mr Chair. The fact is, in speaking to this amendment I am giving some history of what our position is on this amendment and what we have experienced in dealing with this amendment. This particular member kept getting his facts wrong, and at times even the minister had to convince the member for Yorkview to refrain from speaking.

When opposition members of the committee, in justifiable bewilderment, asked questions of the minister or complained about the many problems with the bill, the minister actually insulted us and insinuated that we were stupid. Her arrogance, sarcasm and rudeness were among the worst examples I have seen of behaviour ill becoming a minister of the crown. Even when opposition members of the committee referred to Instant Hansard to prove our points --

The Chair: Order. I would ask you to please speak to the amendment.

Mrs Marland: I am speaking to the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment is very clear. Would you like me to read it to you again?

Mrs Marland: If you wish to.

In speaking to the amendment, Mr Chair, I would point out that we had a great deal of difficulty dealing with this bill in committee, and I'm simply saying that no matter how many times we referred to Hansard to prove our points about what this minister had been saying, the minister remained as obdurate as ever. What the Minister of Housing has to be supercilious about is beyond me and my party. Obviously Bill 121, as originally presented to this House last June and even in October after public hearings and the resulting amendments, was so badly drafted that it should have been withdrawn.

In the standing committee on general government I asked the minister on at least two occasions to withdraw the bill, but obviously she refused, and here we are today with this amendment to the bill on the floor at the moment. We're here today with a bill vastly different from the one with which we started last June.

The Chair: Order. Let me read the motion: that the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by striking out "rent control" wherever it appears and substituting "rent review."

That is the motion. We're not debating second reading. We're debating this amendment. I would ask you please to debate the amendment.

Mrs Marland: I recognize we're not debating second reading. I'm simply saying why I have the comments I have to make on this amendment you've just read.

Tenants and property owners are already confused by the rent control changes which resulted from Bill 4 and they are now wondering why this amendment of this section of Bill 121 will change the system. They have called their local MPPs or the regional rent review offices with their inquiries. Imagine getting one answer between June and October of last year and another from October to the present and yet another after the passage of this bill.

The Chair: Order. I thought I was so clear, and I would ask you please to debate the amendment. The member for Mississauga South, please debate the amendment.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I don't know where it says in debating an amendment I can't refer to what surrounds the content of that amendment. You're talking about the amendment and the definition between "rent control" and "rent review," and I am talking about the impact and what leads to the need for that amendment by the official opposition. That's simply all I am doing.

The Chair: I just want to advise you once more that you must debate the amendment. You have the floor.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, are you ruling that you are going to limit the comments I am making in reference to the amendment?

The Chair: What I'm telling you is that you must debate the amendment. That's all I'm telling you.

Mrs Marland: This is an unusual procedure at the beginning of the committee of the whole, Mr Chair.

The Chair: The sections are very clear. All I'm asking is that you debate the amendment.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, it's interesting that you're saying the sections are very clear. The problem with this whole bill is that none of the bill is clear. The concerns I'm trying to put on the record are the concerns our party has with this bill, and this amendment will not make it any easier for the public to interpret this bill. I am simply trying to place on the record the concerns the public has with this amendment and with this bill, and I think I'm entitled to do that.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: And I don't think interjections are in order.

The Chair: Can I make it very clear that the debate should be on the amendment, and if you wish to make any other comments later on, you could do so at third reading.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: When you listen to the issue of whether we're talking rent review or rent control, throughout all of these proceedings in the committee, the whole procedure, the adding of the amendments, the changing of the whole rules of the game, the bill we had at the beginning of the whole proceedings and what we have now are two completely different things. Whether we're talking rent review or rent control, I would submit that this member's comments are most relevant. The whole proceeding has become so unbelievably complicated, my guess is that the only people in this chamber who know what's going on are the two critics and the minister. It has become so unbelievably complicated. The amendment and what the member is now speaking about has drawn to this committee's attention the complexity of this bill and how it has been made more and more difficult as time has progressed. So I would ask, sir, that you would consider her comments as most relevant in describing whether we're talking rent review or rent control. I would submit that her comments are most relevant.

1720

The Chair: May I ask you once more, the member for Mississauga South, to limit yourself to the motion and to debate the motion presented by the member for Eglinton?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, the amendment to which you refer is addressing the whole bill, is it not?

The Chair: It's changing the words "rent control" to "rent review."

Mrs Marland: Could you tell me if you have the same copy I have, because it says --

The Chair: Could you take your seat for a minute, please. Let me read --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): How can you keep questioning him like this? You're doing exactly what you were doing in committee. Settle down.

The Chair: Order, please, the member for Yorkview. Let me read the amendment once more:

Ms Poole moves that the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by striking out "rent control" wherever it appears and substituting "rent review."

That is the motion.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, you are correct, but you have not addressed the fact that this amendment is to the whole bill. It is not addressing a section of the bill; it is an amendment to the whole bill. My comments are simply addressing the whole bill and this amendment as it pertains to the whole bill. You're asking me to speak to the amendment, which I am doing, and I am addressing the whole bill in my comments in speaking to that amendment.

The Chair: Let me explain to you again. This motion is very specific. It deals with the substitution of the words "rent control" to "rent review." That's all it says. You either speak in favour of it or you speak against it. I would ask you to debate on that motion.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, in speaking to this amendment about striking out "rent control" wherever it appears and substituting "rent review," I am entitled to speak to rent control and rent review and the interpretation of either of those terms throughout the whole bill. That's simply all I am doing. I would respectfully suggest that I am saying to you that there is a history to this bill which the public of Ontario is entitled to know. They are entitled to understand why I have the concerns I have with the amendment referring to rent control and rent review, and I'm entitled to put on the record the concerns that surround not only the use of those two terms, but the whole bill.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: With respect to the critic for the third party, to date I have not heard one piece of information that was related to whether "rent control" should be substituted in this bill by the words "rent review." I think the member has been debating the concept of the whole bill, but we have very limited time for committee of the whole House, we have numerous amendments by at least two of the three parties and a few by the third party, and we cannot possibly get through this if we keep digressing on what the third party critic perceives to be the character of the minister or other things such as that.

The Chair: To the member for Mississauga South, may I ask you once more to debate the amendment brought in by Ms Poole -- let me explain -- and if you have any other information you wish to convey to the public, I would ask you to do so at third reading. At the moment we are debating the amendment, and I'll read the amendment again:

Ms Poole moves that the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by striking out "rent control" wherever it appears and substituting "rent review."

That is the amendment. Either you speak in favour of it or against it. This is what the Chair is asking you to do.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I'm quite happy to abide by your direction. I want to say --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Those are the rules, the ones you accuse us of not knowing.

Mrs Marland: I do take exception to the fact that included in the rules of this House is a prohibition on interjections which, for some reason, at this time you're choosing to ignore.

Mr Mammoliti: Don't speak about the rules, when you're not listening to the Chair.

Mrs Marland: There have been interjections from a number of members in this House. To tell you the truth, I think the whole process is an absolute, total, abject waste of time, because we're standing here debating this amendment presented by the official opposition, which now is aligning itself with -- I wouldn't say with the Chair, but certainly with the government. So now we've got the critic for the official opposition suggesting what I should do in my role as the critic for our caucus.

I won't be part of this game. I think the whole thing is a sham and I have no more comments to make on this amendment.

The Chair: Do you have any further comments on the amendment, the member for Mississauga South?

Mrs Marland: The process is an absolute waste of time and I don't want to be part of it. I do not have any more comments to make to this amendment.

The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions to Miss Poole's amendment? 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.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: Any further amendments to section 1? Ms Poole.

Ms Poole: Yes, Mr Speaker. After that hard-fought battle, I'm going to try again. This amendment actually goes to the heart of the bill.

The Chair: Ms Poole moves that subsection 1(1) of the bill, as amended by the standing committee on general government, be amended by adding the following definition:

"'Board' means the Rent Review Appeals Board."

Ms Poole: As I mentioned before, I believe the reinstatement of an appeals board goes to the heart and soul of what we want to see in this bill. I think most people would consider it a democratic right to have the right of appeal and yet under this legislation there is only a very narrow right of appeal, only in certain circumstances, and then it has to be appealed through the Divisional Court.

This is one of the few issues on which landlords and tenants actually concur. In fact, it's been a unanimous opinion by everybody, it seems, except the government and the ministry, that there should be an appeal board.

Dr Ratna Ray sent a letter to the various people on the committee. She sent a document that actually went to all members of the Legislative Assembly back in December. I would like to use some of Dr Ray's comments on why an appeal board is necessary and why it should be an integral part of this legislation.

1730

Dr Ray made a number of comments, and I'd like to touch on them. The first item Dr Ray, who was at the time chair of the Rent Review Hearings Board, has stated is that the possibility of a hearing in the first instance is a very positive thing, and it certainly appears to answer the shortfalls in the current system where it is administrative review. Dr Ray says this is a very good thing because direct access to the decision-maker allows for the clarification of issues at the time submissions are made. Also, many parties are able to express themselves much better orally than they are in written form. Dr Ray also mentions that a hearing can be used as public education and for the sharing of information.

However, there are a number of problems with only relying on the hearing process and without having an appeal. While it would solve some of the problems, on the other hand, serious new problems would arise when an appeal from an initial-level application is only available to the Divisional Court, and then only under exceptional circumstances.

The first item they talk about when they're talking about the appeal and the desire to have an appeal board is the doctrine of separation of powers and the fact that we need an independent, arm's-length appeals board that would operate independently of perceived or real political influence and should also be free not only of influence from the ministerial side but also from the bureaucratic side. I'd like to quote one particular section from their report:

"The most serious shortfall of the proposed system is the public perception that there is no independent decision-making body which is free from having its discretion fettered in reaching its determinations. When the decision-makers are subject to the control and discretion of the minister, there is no public perception of separation of the judicial process from the political process."

I think that is very true.

Another point Dr Ray brought up was the prohibitive costs if you do not have an appeal board and if tenants and landlords only have as a resort to go to Divisional Court. We talked in the general government committee about the costs of taking just a simple case to court, and it became very obvious that for a complex case it is simply beyond the reach of most tenants and most landlords.

One of the statistics Dr Ray gave us in the report was that under the current system landlord appeals to the Divisional Court have outnumbered tenant appeals in a ratio of over five to one, and I think this very clearly points out the problem about accessibility and availability of the avenue of appeal by using the courts. We're talking about a situation where it's five to one where you do have an appeal board, and these are people who take it beyond that. How many more people would be denied the right of appeal? Even if they fit these very extraordinary circumstances, how many could actually do it if the costs are so prohibitive?

One of the problems they also pointed out is that there needs to be a reconsideration and an opportunity for reconsideration by decision-makers. But you cannot have this reconsideration of decision-makers by the same people. Unfortunately in Bill 121 that's what happens. Instead of having an independent, arm's-length appeal board, there is a mechanism where the decision-maker can appeal his or her own decision, and I'm not sure this is going to engender a lot of trust in the system.

The next point Dr Ray made was that in Bill 121 there is no mechanism to deal with complex errors of fact. They've pointed out that it is quite unclear in the law how this proposed system would deal with complex errors of fact in law. Clearly errors such as the listing of services and facilities or the number of bedrooms could be dealt with quite readily. However, with issues of mixed fact in law or complex errors of fact, such as evidentiary issues of standards of maintenance or the proportion of a complex that is found to be commercial, then these could not be easily determined. Now there is no appeal mechanism. There's none at all, because they can't even appeal those ones to the Divisional Court since they're not errors of law.

The other area where Dr Ray has talked about the need for an independent appeal mechanism is the fact that appeal tribunals are far more cost-effective and expeditious than courtroom proceedings. I think this is a matter not only of common sense but also of fact. This is certainly proven if you compare the cost of an appeals-level tribunal with the courts. It is significantly less costly in both time and dollars. One might say: "Yes, but the Ministry of Housing doesn't pay for the courts. That's the Attorney General." Yes, this is true. It might help the Ministry of Housing's budget, but quite frankly this does put an onerous burden on another ministry in this government.

It's the taxpayers who end up paying the cost. There aren't two pockets for the taxpayers. Whether it's this one or that one, whether it's Housing or Attorney General, it's the same taxpayer who pays for them. What we want is the most expeditious, fairest and most timely way of dealing with this.

The hearings board also felt that a specialized tribunal can better serve the public than the courts, because there's an educational aspect involved, communication is much better, they're far more informal than the courts and they are more accessible. Certainly from the vantage points of both cost and intimidation, I think the appeals process through tribunals would be far better for the public than the courts. That wasn't something Dr Ratna Ray said, but it's certainly something I feel is true.

If it is very concerned with costs, there are certain things the government can do. They could reinstate an appeals board, but instead of having three members they could have one. It isn't the ideal situation, but certainly if the minister is most concerned about cost, then that is one way out. The government has seen fit in this legislation to disband both the standards board and the appeals board, yet according to the statistics given to us in committee by Mr Glass, who is a top official, this system is going to cost about the same as the old system. They hope that one day in the future it is going to cost less.

I've been around government long enough to know that things never seem to cost less. If the estimates are that initially they are going to cost as much as the old system and yet you've taken two of the most valuable features of the old system out, I wonder what this is all about.

I think to appeal is a fundamental right. I guess I feel it's quite ironic that in a situation where we have tenants and landlords finally agreeing on something, the ministry does not agree.

They have alleviated some of my concern by saying that in most cases tenants have an automatic right of appeal. That is very good, but it is still a problematic feature in that there is no independent arm's-length right to appeal decisions made in the rent review system.

Those are my comments at this time unless there is a response after the minister and the third-party critic have responded.

1740

Mr Tilson: This subject has been dealt with at quite some length in the committee process. We talked about the fact that now, under Bill 51, there is a process which allows an appeal process. We now have none unless it's a matter of law.

I note that the Minister of Transportation is in the House. Of course, he has made comments in the past on other issues that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's exactly what I suspect the critic for the Liberal Party is speaking of.

We now have a process being proposed by this bill of rent officers who will be appointed under section 126. After that, if there are typographical errors or other errors or mistakes made by those rent officers on matters of fact, there are some ways of dealing with that. Sections 94 and 95 talk about clerical errors and about how the rent officer may amend them. Section 95 also talks about the power to reconsider within one year. The chief rent officer, if he or she believes a serious error has been made, may reconsider the matter and affirm, rescind, amend or replace the order.

The amendment that is before the committee now is talking about the type of process that Bill 51 has. It's a lead-up to a rent review appeals board. Now, if an error is made in all innocence, whether it be an error made on the landlord's side or on the tenant's side, there is no independent appeals process unless the error is one of law or unless the appeal is one of law, in which case under section 96, any person affected can go off to the Divisional Court. But it's quite clear it's only on a matter of law. I suspect that is what the critic for the Liberal Party is heading to. This is one of many sections she will require if this committee were to recommend to the House that we allow the rent review appeals board which exists under Bill 51 to continue, and that is not present.

The member for Mississauga South spent a great deal of time during committee on her concern with respect to the training of these rent officers. She expressed a concern that these individuals would not be properly trained to understand many of the complexities of the act or the complexities of the regulations, which we have yet to see. We don't even know what a lot of these words mean. We don't even know what a lot of the words are, because the regulations haven't been put forward. What does "inadequate" mean? What do all of these things mean? Are these people properly trained to understand the complexities of those words? If they misinterpret something, where will a person grieved go? Where will a tenant go? Where will a landlord go?

There's no rent review appeals board because this legislation doesn't allow for it. In fact, it does away with the whole process that was allowed by Bill 51. Bill 51 allowed for an appeals process and it was favourably viewed by both landlords and tenants. Clearly, what is being proposed by the Liberal critic is a repetition of the process, a duplication of the process of Bill 51.

All other pieces of legislation that I know of, particularly, for example, the environmental acts, allow for an appeal process. Why is this legislation so different? Why can we not appeal these non-legal matters? All parties will be affected. The tenants will be affected. There will be decisions. These decisions are human decisions, and we all make mistakes. There will be no opportunity to rectify those mistakes other than what is being mentioned in sections 94 and 95, which simply use such vague terminology as the power to reconsider or the discretionary ability of the rent officer to amend it. That's all.

So I will say that we do support the Liberal critic and her direction towards allowing an arm's-length appeal process after the rent officer has made his or her decision, and allowing us to appeal everything, not just matters of law but matters of fact.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes: Just one note as I begin my comments here. Mr Tilson may not be aware that in fact a complete package of proposed regulations has been circulated to members of the committee which worked on this legislation, so he might like to refer to that.

We have before us an amendment which basically proposes to change the structure of the legislation which we're considering. The existing legislation has a very different structure. I'm talking here of Bill 51, the Liberal rent review legislation which is still operative in Ontario. That is legislation which says, first of all, there shall be an administrative determination, where there's no hearing, and then if people are not satisfied on one side or the other with that administrative decision, there's a possibility of appeal to the appeals board, which Ms Poole is now trying to reintroduce into a quite different structure.

The structure proposed here is one where the natural situation will be that there is a hearing in each and every case. It is the exception in this legislation, where both sides, both the landlord and the tenant or the group of tenants will have to agree before there is simply an administrative decision instead of a hearing the first round. So all the matters she quotes from Dr Ratna Ray's letter as former chair of the Rent Review Hearings Board really do not apply. What we are dealing with here is an appeal.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The minister has said that her ministry had circulated a package that contained the proposed regulations to this bill. I would like to advise the Chair that we have not received such a package.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, all we know is that we have done our very best to make sure it has been delivered unto her. What she has received, I guess, is her business on this one, if she has not deigned to receive it.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: You have just seen a perfect example of the kind of insinuations I had to endure from this minister during the general government committee. For her to say that what I have received is my business -- what I have received is indeed the minister's business.

The minister said they had provided to us a package containing all the definitions and the regulations. Mr Chair, as this is part of the minister's statement in this House at this time on this particular amendment, I am telling you that is not the case. I feel you should know that, because I am not in a position to debate the proposed regulations as I have not been given the information by this minister.

Interjection.

The Chair: I would ask you to go to your chair, please, if you want to heckle.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Perhaps I can add some clarification. There was a package sent out; it was sent out a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I believe it even went through the clerk's office to all members of the committee, but I can verify that I certainly received my package.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Minister, a debate on the amendment, please.

1750

Hon Ms Gigantes: I thank my Liberal colleague for that explanation; it's very helpful.

I was speaking to the question of the difference between Bill 51, the legislation that exists now in Ontario, and Bill 121, which is before us. In Bill 51 there is an administrative review and the possibility of appeal to what is called the Rent Review Hearings Board, which Dr Ratna Ray chaired. But in Bill 121, we are dealing with an application that is dealt with by a hearing immediately. It is an exception to the rule under Bill 121 that there is an administrative decision made first.

Further, as Mr Tilson has already noted, where there is an error suspected, brought to the attention of rent review administrators, the rent officer may make an amendment at any time before the hearing of an appeal. That's under section 94.

Mr Tilson: It's discretionary.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Of course it's discretionary, because the error will be an alleged error. It is not an error until it is found to be an error, as the member well knows.

Under section 95 there is a full year provided from the date of an order of a rent determination. "The chief rent officer," if he or she believes a serious error has been made -- and I'll come back to this -- "or his or her delegate shall reconsider the matter and may" -- because there has to be a finding; we don't assume that an allegation is correct -- "affirm, rescind, amend or replace the order." That's not arm's length, that's true. We have not set up a semijudicial process within this legislation. I'll tell you one of the reasons why, Mr Chair. I think it's really a very important improvement in Bill 121.

In the old system, where we're dealing with a first-round decision and then an appeal to the appeal board, we're dealing with stacked-up appeals dealing with the same apartments that go back months after months after months and lap each other. This whole business of going through the rent review appeals board was an enormously time-consuming thing. It was mostly used, contrary to what Ms Poole suggests, by landlords and it mostly produced results that were very close to the first-round administrative decisions.

Given that tenants and landlords have suffered years of this kind of system, I think they are going to find, whatever emotional appeal there is to the notion of an arm's-length appeal -- I will be willing to eat my hat on this one if I'm wrong. I think that in practice, both landlords and tenants are going to very much appreciate the fact that you make an application, the application is heard in a hearing, there is a decision.

If there is an error that can brought quickly to the attention of the rent officer, that error can be amended under section 94. If, within a year, it becomes clear to the chief rent officer there is a serious error -- Dr Ratna Ray referred, as quoted by Ms Poole, to a complex error. This bill doesn't talk about a complex error; this bill talks about a serious error. If, within one year, there's a serious error -- it doesn't have to be complex; it can just be serious -- then the chief rent officer or delegate shall reconsider the matter and make a determination. Beyond that, if somebody wants to go to court -- and it's mostly landlords who've gone to court in the past. They will continue to go to court over matters of law because there are always ways to find a matter of law to contest in court and we can expect there will be court cases. But if in the end, all this does not produce the result that's desired, then somebody will go to court, that's for sure.

What this process is offering is a system that at least provides a fair and a timely method of determining what the applicable rent shall be. I think it's far superior to having this semijudicial and, in my view of things, kind of pseudo-reassuring Rent Review Appeals Board process that took months, that cost lots administratively and that did not, in my experience, as I sign off letters to angry people around this province, produce a whole bunch of happy campers.

Ms Poole: I suspect the NDP backbenchers won't be applauding me on this particular one, because I disagree profoundly with the minister. First of all, she said that Dr Ratna Ray's comments do not apply because since this legislation was first tabled the system has changed and now it offers an automatic right to a hearing rather than administrative review. I can tell the minister that when this legislation was first tabled the system was administrative review unless there was an application by the tenants or landlords within 15 days to have a hearing, which virtually guaranteed that in almost every case there was going to be administrative review, because it usually takes 15 days for Canada Post to even deliver it, let alone for the tenants or landlords to get their act together to ask for it.

When this minister and this ministry -- actually, I beg your pardon. It wasn't this minister; it was another minister, a previous minister, who quite wisely and quickly got out of the Housing ministry. Smart man, that Mr Cooke. Anyway, when he introduced it, there was administrative review and there was no appeal. So this legislation wasn't envisaged to have this hearing process replace the appeal. That was because you got harassed by myself, and also quite a few tenant advocates who said, "We want the right of an automatic hearing, particularly since you have removed the right of appeal." But they wanted both.

They wanted the automatic hearing and they also wanted the right of appeal, because what your hearing process does, Madam Minister, is that it does not provide an independent tribunal. It does not provide an arm's-length tribunal. What it does is that it provides a decision by somebody appointed by you, Madam Minister, by your ministry, who obeys the dictates of the ministry and the minister, who takes directions from the ministry and the minister. It's basically an in-house affair. So how are we going to even perceive, let alone reality -- let's leave reality out for the moment. How is there even going to be the perception that there's fairness and independence and arm's-length process when it's all done within the same ministry?

I would like to mention to the minister -- I believe she might have been there during the committee hearings when I brought this up -- that the member for Oriole did a survey of tenants in her riding. She sent out 15,000 applications. She had a very positive response back, and 91.59% of the tenants who responded said that the Liberal caucus should not support rent legislation that does not provide adequate appeal for rent review orders.

Tenants want it. The federation of Metro tenants wants it. Ottawa-Carleton federation wants it. The Tenant Advocacy Group wants it. United Tenants of Ontario wants it. The tenants out there in buildings in my riding and your riding, Madam Minister, and all across the province want it. Landlords want it, whether they are large landlords or small landlords. Fair Rental wants it. The Urban Development Institute wants it. Everybody wants an appeal, and the demands for an appeal system have not --

The Chair: Will the member for Eglinton please resume her seat?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Mrs Coppen moves that the committee shall rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Interjections: Carried.

The Chair: Carried.

Ms Poole: Mr Chair, on a point of order.

The Chair: Normally, I wouldn't listen to a point of order at 6 o'clock, but I will listen to your point of order.

Ms Poole: Mr Chair, I was quite surprised that the government whip would interrupt me in the middle of a sentence to ask that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: No. I'm sorry, but I did interrupt you. It was not the House leader. It is my prerogative, when it is 6 o'clock, to place the question.

Madam Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1801.