Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE DEPARTMENT AWARDS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Last Wednesday, May 20, I had the privilege of attending a special awards ceremony given by Chief Boughen and the Port Hope Fire Department in honour of five heroes who, with no thought of self-danger, instinctively reacted to save a family from a raging house fire.

Of particular note were the courageous actions of a 13-year-old family member, Sarah Johnson. When she heard her mother's warnings and saw the danger, she ran down the second-floor hallway and led her seven-year-old sister Shauna and her four-year-old brother Austin to her bedroom. She then helped them out of her bedroom window on to the rear porch roof, away from the direction of the billowing clouds of thick smoke, and ordered them to lie down on the roof.

Her loud screams attracted a neighbour, Peter Schoon, who grabbed a ladder and went to the children's aid. By this time the house was engulfed in smoke and flames. Peter then lowered the children to another neighbour, Mel Perrie, who together with Starr Rath and Roy Burgess made sure the children were ministered to and looked after.

The fact that this remarkable young girl, Sarah Johnson, was able to remember and put into practice the lessons the members of the fire department had taught when they visited the area school is very significant. As well, Chief Boughen and his crew did a superb job in containing and extinguishing the blaze which prevented further damage to the surrounding homes.

Everyone involved in this emergency life-threatening situation is to be commended for their calm and courageous actions in what might have been a devastating tragedy of lost lives. I am sure all members would want to join with me in applauding these local Port Hope heroes and heroines.

LABATT'S ONTARIO BREWERIES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On May 14, Labatt Brewing announced that due to economic factors it would be closing its Waterloo plant and that about 200 jobs would be lost. I want to indicate my concern about yet another plant closing in my community and to express my profound admiration for the employees who tried so hard to make their plant work. The Labatt's brewery on King Street in Waterloo has roots extending back to 1844, when the Kuntz brewery was founded. This brewery was not only an integral part of our local economy, but also an important part of Kitchener-Waterloo's heritage.

I would like to pay tribute at this time to the efforts of the workers at the brewery, who have been described as the best Labatt's workforce in Canada. During the past few years they have tried hard to increase their plant's productivity and have been leaders in innovative work practices and efficiency. They responded to the challenge of keeping their plant economically viable with commendable dedication. The truly tragic aspect of this situation is that these efforts were ultimately futile.

However, I say to the workers from all of us in Waterloo North, appreciation and sincere thanks for a job well done.

HERITAGE WEEK

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I want to draw attention to the Heritage Week festivities taking place in my riding of Durham East and in particular in the town of Bowmanville. The week-long events are so many that my 90-second time allotment prevents me from mentioning them all.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the historical walking tour of the town of Bowmanville this Friday at 1:30 pm. For children there is the teddy bear clinic, where they can bring their teddy bears for a checkup at Orono town hall on Saturday at 10 am. Also on Saturday at Bowmanville Lions Club there is a Christian prayer breakfast hosted by the town of Newcastle. Come and listen to hockey great Paul Henderson.

On Sunday perhaps the highlight of the week is the environmental fair which is being conducted in the Bowmanville arena. The price is right. It doesn't cost anything, the babysitting is free and it proposes to be just a super, wonderful day for all the environment lovers.

Come to Bowmanville this week and share our enjoyment with us.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, the beautiful little community in my riding which you had the pleasure of visiting this past spring is facing a possible disaster. The condition of the Sioux Lookout sewage treatment plant is critical. Not only is it operating at capacity; it has deteriorated to such a degree that it could experience a major breakdown at any time without warning. If this happens, raw untreated sewage will be released into Pelican Lake, the source of the town's drinking water.

The potential health and environmental hazards are unthinkable, yet another application for funding to construct a new sewage treatment plant sent in to the Ministry of the Environment has received little attention. The town has made this project priority one for its community. Measures have been brought in to conserve water and for the past year the town has been forced to put a freeze on any development.

The town of Sioux Lookout has much potential. It serves as a resource and service centre for many of the northern native communities. With the move towards native self-government, Sioux Lookout's position as a centre will increase. Unfortunately, its economic and social development are being hindered by the limited capacity of its present plant.

I, along with the people of Sioux Lookout and the communities it services, am asking the Minister of the Environment to make this funding request a priority with her ministry.

KIN CLUBS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): For the past few days I've had the honour of touring my riding, attending ceremonies sponsored by my local Kinsman and Kinette clubs.

Most members will think of the Kinsman organization as being a service club devoted to community betterment. They think of the valuable contribution made by these groups to cystic fibrosis and the assistance they have given to research and to aiding sufferers of the disease. They will also think of their new work with Operation Go Home, to assist runaway youngsters, and Operation Shining Light, which helps victims of child abuse.

But this week Kinsman and Kinette clubs across Ontario had another worthy cause to promote -- national unity. At a time when emotions are high, they have seized the opportunity to celebrate Canada's 125th birthday by bringing whole communities together, young and old alike, to pledge their love and support for our country.

The clubs started one Canadian flag travelling west from British Columbia and another one coming east from Newfoundland. They are being raised in cities and towns along the way until they meet at the Terry Fox memorial in Thunder Bay.

Grey was fortunate enough to have clubs in Durham, Flesherton, Feversham, Hanover, Owen Sound, Meaford and Thornbury participating. As well, each club provided a second flag with a huge border on which thousands were able to sign their names. This initiative heightened the awareness of the thread which holds us together and engendered the resolve to strengthen it.

I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I especially thank Kinsmen Dave Hurst and Rusty Reidt of Hanover and Tom Bumstead of Meaford for their dedication and their commitment to Canada.

1340

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to recognize the important work of the London Family Court Clinic child witness program in helping child victims and witnesses understand the criminal justice system and their role as witnesses.

Last Monday in London, where my riding is located, I was pleased to announce on behalf of the Attorney General $280,000 in continued funding to be shared equally between the London and Toronto programs. Crimes against children too often have not been acted on by the criminal justice system because a child just doesn't understand the court process. Too often, a child who has suffered abuse undergoes the further ordeal of fear, stress and confusion in the courtroom.

Now, at 12 sites across the province such as London, we are the sole funding provider. Federal funding has dried up, but the New Democratic government of Ontario is following through on its budget commitment to maintain important programs and services. We will ensure that through support from the child witness program, children are not further victimized by a system that is set up to protect them.

There is also a wider benefit. Young, impressionable individuals are being shown caring and concern are at the heart of our justice system and that access to and respect for the laws are for everyone. I commend the work of Peter Jaffe, Louise Sas and other members of the project team of London Family Court Clinic child witness program. May their influence be as strong as their efforts.

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have received from several of my constituents and several people who are not constituents letters of concern directed towards the new Ministry of Transportation policy about non-commercial signs along the highways of our province.

Although I have disagreement with some people who advertise on some of the billboards we see placed on our highways, I none the less respect the right of people to express through the posting of signs along our major highways their points of view, whatever the subject matter.

I have written to the Minister of Transportation and he kindly wrote me a letter in reply, which says basically that there has been no change in the policy, merely a demonstration of more precision in the way they enforce their "field sign regulation." The minister has changed the regulation to eliminate a reference in the regulation to the word "service." That then requires only the field staff to allow the placement of business or commercial signs along our major thoroughfares.

I believe this is a real incursion against freedom of speech. It represents a problem with respect to the way we are able to practise our religions in this province and the minister should own up to that.

I might add that some of the people who wrote to me also wrote to Mr Klopp, the member for Huron. Through a phone call, Mr Klopp has conveyed to at least one minister in the riding of Huron that "the government might be open to some changes." At this particular time I want the Minister of Transportation to tell us what the government is open to changing with respect to non-commercial signs.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the minister with dual responsibilities for native affairs and natural resources. Natives and non-natives alike are outraged by the lack of information and mixed signals your ministries are sending and providing to the people of Ontario with respect to your interim enforcement policy on aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food.

Minister, you have an obligation to clear the air over this matter. People want you to explain exactly what controls you have put in place to ensure appropriate conservation of crown land and that such natural resources as forests, fish, wildlife and minerals are protected. You have an obligation to explain why you have directed your conservation officers not to lay charges against native Ontarians when they are clearly abusing your interim enforcement policy by using nets and spears to harvest spawning fish in a manner that puts conservation at risk.

Minister, surely you must know you're creating friction between groups of people by keeping your interim enforcement policy wrapped in a veil of secrecy. The time is long overdue for you to truthfully and completely tell the people of Ontario just what your interim enforcement policy really means and what percentage of forests, fish, wildlife and mineral resources you are prepared to turn over to native control.

Minister, you have an obligation to put an end to the anti-native backlash and the abuse of our natural resources you have created with your interim enforcement policy.

EAST YORK DAY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Sunday, May 24, 1992, the mayor's committee on multicultural and race relations in the borough of East York held its 15th annual East York Day festival. I wish to share with the House how much I enjoyed participating in this event, which was held at the East York Collegiate Institute.

The East York Day activities provided a rich atmosphere through the display of different cultural and heritage traditions representing many different countries. These activities served as a forum for promoting and developing healthy race and ethnic relations and respect among people of diverse backgrounds.

The Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and his worship Mayor David Johnson, mayor of East York, officially opened the festival.

Members of the House may wish to commend Mr Shamsh Kara, chairperson of the East York Day committee, who is sitting with us today, on providing excellent leadership in making East York Day a successful and enjoyable one.

The festival provided an opportunity for many racial and cultural groups from across my riding of York East to showcase their arts, handicrafts, entertainments and ethnic cuisine for the enjoyment of all those people who were able to participate.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under rule 32(a) I would seek your guidance and assistance. On April 14 I asked a question to the Minister of Labour wherein it had come to our attention that the Ministry of Labour's Workers' Health and Safety Centre had sent almost its entire staff on a two-and-a-half-day retreat at the posh Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake. In response, the minister indicated that he would get back to me in terms of why the decision was made to hold the session in Niagara Falls.

That question was posed on April 14, and I recognize that the standing rules, under 32(a), do permit a minister to take an oral question as notice, to be answered at a later date. But I seek your guidance and assistance on this point: that I posed the question on April 14; it is now May 27, and I have yet to receive a response from the Minister of Labour on what I feel was a very straightforward question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga North, I appreciate him drawing this matter to my attention, and indeed appreciate his natural interest in having a very speedy response. There is nothing in the standing orders nor our precedents that would prescribe a time limit for responses. However, the member has now raised it in the chamber again, and perhaps it will have the desired effect shortly.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We, as well as the Conservative Party, were notified that the Attorney General would be making a statement in the House today. We were provided with a copy of the statement, and we're certainly ready to respond. We're curious as to whether he will be here. I'm sure there would be unanimous consent for him to make his statement --

The Speaker: If the member would take his seat. I understand that a copy of the statement has been provided. We've been provided with everything except the Attorney General. Can the government House leader enlighten us?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No. I can see if I can find him.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Here he comes.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Attorney General is here. May I rise on a point of order after we have our statements? Thank you.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PARKING OFFENCES

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will make important changes to Ontario's system of processing parking tickets.

With an estimated 3 million to 4 million parking tickets issued each year, the system has had a surprisingly small proportion of glitches. However, there are some problems, such as wrongful convictions, which have been extremely annoying for thousands of motorists.

The legislation contains three key amendments which will greatly reduce the problems with wrongful convictions of motorists, and it will also make it easier for municipalities to take direct control of the collection of fines.

At present, administrative errors in parking offences can result in motorists being wrongfully convicted. This happens when the ticketing officer writes down the wrong licence number or when incorrect data are entered into the computer system. When a motorist is matched up with this incorrect data, the first time he hears about it is when he receives a notice of conviction. All MPPs, I'm sure, have had some complaints about this kind of problem. We are proposing, therefore, amendments which will give the motorist increased protection against wrongful conviction.

First, municipalities will be required to provide motorists with advance notice of an intent to seek a court conviction. In this way motorists can respond to any error that has been made before a conviction is entered. As well, ticketing officers will have to include the month of renewal of the licence sticker, which is on the upper right-hand corner of the licence plate. This allows for a cross-check of information to verify ownership.

Second, we are simplifying the conviction process for parking offences by proposing that municipalities be allowed to certify that a ticket is indeed valid. They can then obtain a conviction through a court clerk rather than requiring a justice of the peace. We estimate that this process will significantly reduce the demand on the court's time. However, should the ticketing officer write an invalid ticket on which a conviction is entered and is overturned in court, the bill allows for a $25 penalty in costs against the municipality. Again, this is to ensure more thorough protection for the motorist from wrongful conviction.

Another serious problem is that of unpaid parking fines. Currently, nearly half of the parking tickets issued in the province are simply ignored by the motorist. The municipality is forced to wait for a conviction from the court after an examination by a justice of the peace. With this streamlined process, municipalities can follow up on fine collection much more quickly, because fewer matters will be filed with the court and convictions can be obtained through a court clerk. And since municipalities will have the option of directly collecting outstanding fines, motorists can expect to hear much sooner about their unpaid parking tickets.

These amendments do not change the current process of plate denial or allowing motorists to prepay fines with a guilty plea or the opportunity to require a trial, but this bill does address the need to improve efficiency and eliminate the irritant of wrongful conviction. I trust my colleagues in the House will join me in supporting these changes.

RESPONSES

PARKING OFFENCES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): We welcome this particular announcement, but again it's long overdue. In fact, had this particular provision been introduced in a proper manner, it would have saved a lot of hardship for the member for Cambridge, whose staff, because of this bureaucratic mixup, had to endure trying to fix traffic ticket charges and a lot of other inconveniences for this government and the public.

But the point is that this minister and this ministry should be properly named the Minister of Inertia, because virtually nothing is happening with this ministry. On the question of legal aid, there are people out there in the legal profession and the public who are waiting for some action and announcements from this minister, and again it is a question of inertia. There's no action taking place. There's a whole series of inactions on the part of this particular ministry.

Mr Speaker, I see you're looking at me with some consternation. I think the issue here is why it took so long to bring this in and why it's taking so long to introduce other matters.

One particular issue I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues is something the Attorney General should be addressing his attention to in a significant manner, and that's a very serious question in the ministry dealing with sexual harassment. We have in the last issue of the Law Times a front-page story of some significance to this Legislature and to the ministry. The headline says, "Court Administrator Claims Bosses Ignored Complaints About Judge Sex Harassment." I'm going to read a few quotes, because I think it's very instructive, and I'm demanding at this point that either the minister responsible for women's issues or the Attorney General conduct an inquiry into what has been going on in the Belleville courthouse. It's something that they have slipped under the carpet and they're trying to keep there. I'm going to refer --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment. The response time is for responding to the statement made by the minister. This particular statement has to do with parking fines. If the member could direct his remarks to the statement, it would be helpful.

Mr Chiarelli: This time, as far as I'm concerned and from what I've observed in four and a half years, is available to make comments on the ministry, and that's done day in and day out. I'm addressing his issue as one of inaction on a number of fronts.

One inaction has been how long his ministry has taken on this parking matter. Another inaction is what has not happened in his ministry with respect to these sexual assault charges, which must be addressed by his ministry. The charges in this article are very severe. The facts are set out in a very responsible report. There is sexual harassment in the Ministry of the Attorney General which has not been dealt with, and the minister responsible for women's issues and the Ministry of the Attorney General are not addressing the issue. I'm taking this opportunity to ask the minister to conduct an inquiry.

The Speaker: I think it may be of some assistance to the member that we will shortly be having question period, and perhaps he has good subject material for questions during question period. Could you direct your remarks to the statement that was made?

Mr Chiarelli: I will, Mr Speaker. I mentioned that the member for Cambridge got into a lot of trouble because this particular law that was talked about today was not introduced earlier, and there are lot of other people getting in trouble because laws are introduced late, in an untimely manner and in an irresponsible manner. That's what I'm talking about here, Mr Speaker. It's directly related to the method by which this government introduces its initiatives. They are way overdue in addressing the sexual harassment charge in the courthouse in Belleville, and I'm asking publicly for an investigation.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa West really is touching on an entirely different subject than the one which was addressed by the Attorney General in his statement, and I would ask the member to keep that in mind.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, due to the fact that my time is up, I will conclude my remarks. I would ask the Attorney General to address the issues in his ministry on a timely basis. The one today was not timely, there are many others which are not timely, and I think it is time he had an investigation on this issue.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to respond to this action today, and clearly it is appropriate that we have amendments to allow that we do not have wrongful convictions. We are all very aware of the problems that exist.

However, I would say that I'm concerned as much with what it doesn't say as with what it does say in this statement. We are aware that apparently the Ministry of Transportation is moving to take away the ability of licence-issuing offices to collect parking fines, and that is a great concern to these offices. We have heard over and over again statements by the Ministry of Transportation as to what it is going to do, and then the very next day we find out that something different occurs. The people who run these offices have been promised alternative revenue; however, they've seen nothing to substantiate the government's claims.

1400

Clearly it is appropriate that we use modern technology to validate that indeed the licence plate number is correct. This is quite a simple cross-check. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it should have been done a long time ago. However, we welcome it. We ask, though, that maybe in any efforts to speed up parking ticket payments the Attorney General should address himself to his other cabinet colleagues and suggest there are other urgent things that should be sped up.

For example, the Minister of the Environment sat on the Spadina light rapid transit project for a very long time and added cost and indeed slowed down the investment in infrastructure. That is very salient to the question of the parking tickets, because parking tickets occur simply because people cannot get around on the transit system. We've got to address ourselves to the urgent requirement of transit. We should indeed make sure that fines are addressed to road use and to transit because we know that municipalities are doing the same as the province, and that is that the money disappears into general revenue. We've got to start spending money on our infrastructure, and it seems appropriate that parking fines would be invested in the roads.

I think that whole issue should go out to the whole cabinet. They should think of speeding up and simplifying government. But don't do it by the back door. Don't let us take away the incomes of private citizens running private licensing offices, people who are providing the province with a very good service at a very low cost. That's what the government is doing because it wants to see more bureaucrats. This is all part and parcel of this government's plan to completely socialize this province, that we will indeed end up with gazillions of civil servants and very few private business people. I don't know where the tax money is going to come from to pay any parking fines if everybody is working for the government, because it is not productive money.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to talk for a moment about the conducting of business in this Legislative Assembly. There was in the daily press -- the Globe and Mail, to be specific -- an article which brought into question the tactics of the Liberal Party of Ontario, an allegation made by the government House leader about the fact that we were, because of our inability, he said, to accept election defeat, holding up unusually long the business of the House.

An allegation like that is not only misplaced but in fact is designed to do but one thing, and that is to bring down the level of business activity in this House so that the New Democrats can have their way with us and move to put in streamlined procedures so that they can overcome any sort of opposition.

I rise on a point of order to point out to this House and to other people that in fact the arguments placed in the public record through the newspapers are not only incorrect but are designed to inject a little more enthusiasm into our resistance of some of the activities.

I bring to your attention standing order 6, which talks about the meeting of this House and only wish to advise you, Mr Speaker, that this government violated the standing orders of this House by refusing to bring us back to this place in the early part of March when the Premier, because he was afraid to see the people, decided to delay the sitting of this House. Now the government House leader has his nerve by going out publicly to the newspapers to say we can't conduct business.

Mr Speaker, I also rise to bring to your attention that while there are a number of pieces of legislation in front of us, the business of this House cannot be conducted in this place until the government brings before the people's representatives, to be studied and debated, the pieces of legislation which have been offered to the public, promised to the public, not only through its budget, not only through its throne speech but through other indirect statements to the public.

Those pieces of legislation we have not yet seen and this government is going to try to press through, without debate, will include the labour legislation, the environmental bill of rights, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the House leader conclude his point of order, please.

Mr Elston: -- the clean air act, the Ontario investment fund and several others.

We cannot conduct our business here if these people will not bring forward their legislative agenda in a timely manner so we can do our business. The reason we aren't doing the business is that they have no tenacity of purpose, I shall say, no resolve to bring in front of the public these pieces of legislation to be thoroughly dissected and analysed by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and those people, quite honestly, who even dare to disagree with their ideology.

We saw their labour paper coming out, which said they are prepared to neutralize any dissent. This latest article printed in the Globe and Mail is but another in a long series of events designed to close off any reasonable debate and to shut down the work of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point as the member for Bruce, Mr Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the government House leader has chosen to negotiate normal proceedings that would take place at House leaders' meetings every Thursday morning through the media. I think that's extremely unfortunate.

I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the points the member for Bruce made. That is, (a) if the government had such a heavy legislative agenda and it had so many things it wanted to accomplish in this session, indeed we should have been back here in March instead of in the month of April -- that would have saved us three weeks -- and (b) how can the government House leader indicate to the media that he still has 11 or 12 substantial pieces of legislation to deal with? Next Monday, for his information, is June 1. I would have thought that if these pieces of legislation were so important to the government and it knew how it wanted to proceed, they would all have been tabled at least three weeks ago, not next week, not within the next two weeks.

I'm sure we can find many speeches by the government House leader in this place criticizing previous governments for doing far less than he's going to propose to do in the next couple of weeks, and I'm sure we'll be glad to read him back those quotes ad nauseam, on and on, about how dare a government wait until the last few weeks of a session to introduce a significant piece of legislation. Well, he isn't going to do that. He's going to try to introduce a significant 12 pieces of legislation, for which there'll be no time for debate in the Ontario Legislature, and try to ram them through, and if he doesn't get them through, he's going to blame the opposition for his own incompetence.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We've already heard your version in the Globe and Mail.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No, you didn't hear it; you read it. But I'm glad you took a look at it.

I find the comments from the two opposition House leaders very interesting. With respect to the return date for the Legislature, some of us have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter when we come back, because what happened last fall was that we came back here on the date prescribed in the rules and we did nothing for six weeks because the opposition parties wouldn't let anything go through the House. We've now been back in session --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: You see, Mr Speaker, we sat and listened to them, but they don't want to listen to us, which is quite typical of this place.

1410

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: We've been back now for well over a month and we've got four pieces of legislation through the House: tax bills from the 1991 budget and a couple of Attorney General bills. I heard the critic for the Attorney General say today we're not doing anything. You didn't let us get the AG's bills through for about a year, so don't talk to me about that.

I am glad the House leader for the official opposition owned up to the real strategy of the opposition parties today, that is, that they don't intend to let us govern. They've never accepted the fact that we were elected on September 6. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, we were democratically elected and we're going to take whatever actions we have to take to be given the right to govern in this place. Whatever those actions of the government are, we will take those actions to take control of this place and not let an opposition party that is still wounded by its defeat in the last election try to govern this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: I don't mind people joining the debate and disagreeing with me; I dislike the government House leader saying I said things that have not been said. In fact, I know it is a lie. I am not allowed to call him a liar, but what he said was contained in my remarks is not correct. It is totally without any factual basis whatsoever.

While I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, I again -- and I've talked to you about some of the language that's been used. I've heard people over there talking about how the opposition members are too stupid -- the Minister of Transportation in other places. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that this place is not going to be helped by this. I stood only to bring your attention to the fact that certain allegations were being made politically against our party, and against the opposition in general, about what these people could not do. It is against the standing rules of this place to impute motives in this House. It is, as the government House leader has just done, against the rules to impute to me certain false statements.

What can we do, if we are to carry on business in a human fashion here, if we cannot stand and bring to your attention the fact that they talk about such a big, heavy agenda and they won't bring the material to our attention? I only ask you, sir, to consider those from the opposition's point of view.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders, let me briefly address two points: (1) While I very deeply appreciate the point of order the member for Bruce brought to my attention with respect to the conducting of business in the House, there is nothing out of order; (2) the normal procedure followed for the orderly conducting of business in the chamber has been, by tradition, by way of the three House leaders meeting on a regular basis.

I have offered on previous occasions and I continue to offer that if there is any way in which my office can be of assistance in trying to provide a better vehicle or a better atmosphere for those meetings in order to have a more orderly conducting of business in the House, I'm more than delighted to do that.

If the House has come to order, then it is time for oral questions. The member for York Centre, on a different matter?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a related point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the standing orders, this session of this Parliament is to adjourn for the summer on June 26. I have been advised through a usually reliable source that the government House leader --

Mr Bradley: The Globe and Mail.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: You might just bear with me for a moment. The government House leader --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: As I was saying, the standing orders provide that this House would normally recess on June 26. I have been advised by a generally reliable source that the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, has confidentially advised his own caucus members not to make vacation plans for the month of July. The suggestion is that he would be bringing forward a motion to require --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: -- that the government House leader has privately communicated to his caucus members not to make vacation plans for the month of July, presumably on the basis that he may be bringing forward a motion to this Parliament to extend its sitting into the month of July.

I would suggest to you, sir, that if that is indeed the case it violates the privileges of me as a member and of the other members of this House who have not been advised of that fact. I think the only fair thing to do is for the government House leader to stand in his place now and advise the House whether he has so communicated to his own caucus that information and why he hasn't communicated that to all the members of the House. I have as much right to make my vacation plans --

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, there are two points here. Number one, the member is absolutely right that the standing orders prescribe a parliamentary calendar, and the House will recess on the fourth Thursday of June.

Mr Sorbara: If he's making plans for us to be here, we should know about it.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, who raised a point of order, I'm responding to it. Second, however, the Speaker cannot deal with hypothetical situations. If and when any particular situation actually occurs, at that time I'm able to deal with it.

It is time for oral questions. The member for Renfrew North.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Treasurer and it concerns what clearly is the number one priority for all Ontarians, and that's jobs. I want to pursue with the Treasurer the question of summer jobs for students and the whole situation of youth unemployment.

I will not bore my friend the Treasurer with the data which have been brought forward in the last few days by his own government, but I want to take him back to some of the references he's made earlier this week, and that the Premier has made, in respect of what the government is doing in so far as stimulating job creation is concerned. Both the Premier and the minister of finance have indicated that the government will this year be providing, for example, 3,000 positions with the Environmental Youth Corps.

Does the Treasurer understand that at 3,000 -- actually, my information, provided by the government, is that there will be 3,168 positions provided this summer by the Environmental Youth Corps -- that will none the less be 20% fewer than were provided two years ago?

In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Summer Experience program, which offered 140 positions two years ago, will this year be offering 56 positions, a reduction of some 60%. The Niagara Parks Commission, which four years ago hired some 756 students, will this summer be hiring some 500 students. The Toronto Hospital, which two years ago offered some 200 students positions, will this summer be offering no positions whatsoever.

Is the Treasurer aware of that, and what is he prepared to do about it?

1420

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I was not aware of the Toronto Hospital's decision. That's their decision, not the decision of the government.

On the other matters, I want to assure the member for Renfrew North, who raises these questions from time to time, that funding has indeed been maintained in the Futures program and the Environmental Youth Corps program. I believe the member mentioned that the Environmental Youth Corps has 3,160. My information was that last year we had 3,200; it is basically the same as last year. As well, we have maintained our commitment in the Summer Experience program for youth and in the student and youth venture program.

On top of that, I have been informed by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation that at Ontario Place there will be at least 1,400 students employed this year, which is an increase of about 125 or more over the number employed last year. That's partly because of the open-gate policy at Ontario Place, of course. There are going to be 233 new student jobs there in partnership with the private sector.

I think, to put it in perspective, we are doing what we can, given a very tight fiscal environment, to provide jobs for our youth this summer.

Mr Conway: Is the Treasurer aware that the Ontario Tree Planters' Association has indicated that this summer, largely because of Ministry of Natural Resources cuts, it will be offering 1,500 fewer positions to young people to plant trees than last year? Last year's offering was approximately 4,000 positions. They are saying that this year they will be offering 1,500 fewer positions to young people.

Is he aware, for example, that in the private sector College Pro Painters, one of the big employers for young people, will this summer be offering about one half the positions it offered two years ago, that Dofasco tells us it will be offering no summer positions, that Brewers Retail tells us it has no positions for students this summer as opposed to several scores of positions just two years ago?

The Premier says the problem is serious and more needs to be done and something aggressive is going to come forward for the summer of 1992. The Treasurer says it's a vexing problem. The evidence does not confirm what you're suggesting. In fact, the programs you yourself have mentioned -- I will go back again to the Environmental Youth Corps --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Conway: -- has roughly 20% fewer positions this year than two years ago and a net reduction in positions this year from last year. That is what your government officials are telling us. What do you say to young people who will not be accessing Futures? The students coming out of the Sudbury high schools, the students coming out of Cambrian College --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: -- the students coming out of Laurentian will not be interested in Futures. What do you say to those people for this summer?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that the member for Renfrew North has raised the matter of the private sector in some cases not hiring as many students as last year. That was what I tried to say to the member for Renfrew North yesterday or the day before, that in the last two years there've been almost 300,000 people laid off in this province by the private sector.

On one hand, we get members opposite saying that as the government we should be laying off civil servants. It seems to me it would not make any sense whatsoever to add to the problem. We have tried to maintain our commitment to the essential programs. But the member for Renfrew North makes a good point, that the private sector is hiring fewer people in many cases and has laid off a lot of people. This government will do what it can, but I don't want to give the impression to members opposite or to anybody else that we can pick up the entire gap caused by layoffs in the private sector. We can't do it, whether it's for youth or whether it's for people of any age.

Mr Conway: Most reasonable people would accept that, but the reality seems to be that the government's own summer programs, in the main, are being reduced, whether it's the Environmental Youth Corps, whether it's the tree planting program, whether it's the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Summer Experience program or a score of others I could point out.

The NDP government, over the course of the last 15 months, found $75 million to nationalize the private child care sector. The Ontario NDP government found hundreds of millions of additional dollars for the Ontario Medical Association. What I'm asking my friend the Treasurer is, within reasonable limits, will he not recognize that these young people who are desperately looking to get on the ladder of economic opportunity require as least as much assistance as you've been able to provide to the Ontario Medical Association or to some others for whom you have made a very significant accommodation?

When is Ms Akande, when is Mr Rae, when is Mr Laughren going to show to the young people of Ontario that there will be something meaningful, something real, to access in terms of employment for the summer of 1992, having regard to the fact that it is now the 27th of May?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Renfrew North, as is usual, raises a very good point and raises matters of important public interest to this chamber, but I think he should not lead people to believe that the government hasn't maintained a lot of the programs for students this summer. I have said that before.

We have maintained our funding for the Futures program, for the Environmental Youth Corps, for Summer Experience and for the student and youth venture capital programs. At Ontario Place there's going to be more employment than there was last year. So to put it in perspective, you have to at least give credit to government for maintaining programs when it has done so.

Also, the member for Renfrew North, who is a member of some experience and influence within his caucus and his party, I hope will get the message to his colleagues in his caucus that they cannot for ever, day after day, tell us our taxation is too high. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt tells me that we should not have raised taxes. Other members, such as the member for Kenora, say the deficit's too high. The member for Renfrew North is saying we should be spending more money. It would be very helpful if there were a consistent message coming from the opposition.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to go to the Treasurer, and the question is on jobs. We're going to be relentless on this, Treasurer, I assure you, until this problem is fixed.

I want to talk about construction jobs with you, Treasurer. You will be aware that there's a growing sense of betrayal among construction workers in this province. I talked last night with several union leaders in the construction trades. It's not a question of spending more money; it's a question of commitments that you made to the construction trades that you didn't follow through on. They've asked me if I can get some specific answers out of the Rae government.

I'll start with last year's budget. You promised in that budget that it was an anti-recession program. You promised that you would be looking after the construction trades. You promised that you would substantially increase spending on capital projects. Yet, as we find in your financial report, what did you do? Where did you find the money to reduce your deficit? It was by cutting capital. In fact, you cut $400 million out of capital projects. Why did you do that? You said in your report, "It is due to measures undertaken to accommodate the net revenue decline." So we're talking about commitments that you made and commitments that you broke.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: What should I tell the workers in the construction industry about why you chose them to bear the brunt of your spending reductions last year? Why was it they who had the $400-million reduction layered on their backs?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'm not sure where the member is getting his information on capital expenditures, but this year we are spending more on capital than has ever been spent in the history of this province. That's a fact, an absolute fact.

As far as the member's contention about the construction industry, people I've talked to in the construction industry -- and I do talk to people in the construction industry -- tell us they're very happy with the streamlining of the planning process, the 10,000 homes that are being completed this year from last year's budget and the 20,000 homes that we announced for the next three years. I think it is inappropriate and unfair to imply that the construction industry and the workers in the construction industry do not appreciate what we are doing. They do indeed.

Mr Phillips: I'm going to go back to the Treasurer. I asked you a specific question. It was your report, no one else's. You said you cut $400 million out of your anti-recession program. Why did you do that? For one reason: You did that because you had revenue reductions.

I'll repeat the question, Treasurer: What should I tell the workers in those union halls about why they bore the brunt of your expenditure reduction last year? Why did you cut $400 million out of your capital projects in order to meet your revenue reductions? What should I tell them about the impact that's had on their jobs?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: I think you should tell them you made a mistake, because I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that the $400 million to which he refers was a deferment of capital expenditures in 1991-92. I make absolutely no apology for coming to this assembly with expenditures in the past year of almost half a billion dollars less than we had budgeted a year ago. That I believe is responsible fiscal management during a recession.

Mr Phillips: Your own words, Treasurer, said "this reduction." You used the words, "This reduction is due to revenue declines." You've cut $400 million out of the budget.

I'll go to this year's budget, Treasurer, because I again think you are misleading the construction workers in Ontario. You have in your budget three programs for construction jobs. I assure you that you are spending less money this year, 1992, on those three programs than you spent last year. It's right in your own budget. So don't tell me I've got the wrong figures. If the figures are wrong, they're the figures you've got in the budget.

I want to know, how do I go to those construction workers and tell them that you are creating more jobs when you are going to spend less money this year in those three programs than you spent last year? I need a straight answer from you on this. How am I going to tell them there are more construction jobs in 1992-93 with less money?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure whether the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is referring to the $500-million special capital program this year or whether he's referring to the base capital of $3.4 billion which is on top of the $500-million special strategic capital, to total a $3.9-billion capital program this year. That is a substantial commitment to capital in this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're missing the point.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I'm not missing the point. The point is that we have made a major commitment to capital expenditures, and much of that money will be done by the private sector, and the construction workers in that sector will of course benefit from that commitment to capital. I don't mind if the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is relentless day after day after day, but I do hope he'll be accurate and consistent.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question?

Mr Phillips: I resent that. I'm accurate in my numbers, and I got them straight out of the budget.

The Speaker: No, new question.

Mr Phillips: I would ask the Treasurer to withdraw that remark, because I am accurate; I am reflecting exactly what you say in your budget, Treasurer.

The Speaker: Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: All I said, by the way, was that I wanted him to be accurate; I didn't say he was inaccurate. But if that offends the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I will withdraw it.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I also have a question for the Treasurer, and I want to read, Treasurer, from a letter from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers regarding your Ontario investment fund, because it seems that even your own brethren don't trust you to be their financial keeper. The IBEW, to all their members who belong to the OMERS pension fund, with regard to the Ontario investment fund says this in its letter, "OMERS, as well as the other pension funds involved, said no to the idea of the Ontario investment fund, that they will not voluntarily participate." They go into a number of reasons, one of which is that the province's investment record is poor and could be politically biased.

Treasurer, the international brotherhood asks why, with your fiscal record, they should let you get your money-hungry hands on their pension money. I would ask you, Treasurer, can you give them a reason why they should trust you with their retirement funds?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Mr Speaker, let me put the whole question of the Ontario investment fund in context, first of all; I hope you will allow me to do that.

When we indicated we wanted to create an Ontario investment fund we sought out people in the pension management field, in the public sector unions, in the private financial sector, and talked to them about this. We brought together an advisory committee. We now have a committee that's working on consultation and drafting of a specific proposal, which of course at some point will be brought to this assembly.

There was some original reluctance on the part of the public sector pension managers, and I think there's still some hesitation on their part. I don't deny that. What I've indicated to them is that any contributions to the Ontario investment fund will of course be voluntary. This is not some kind of money grab on the part of the government; it's simply an attempt to do what a lot of other jurisdictions around the world are doing and to bring Ontario into the 20th century.

Mr Harris: My caucus is receiving letters from many public employees all across this province who say to you, Treasurer, to keep your hands off their pension money. In fact, the employees of Wasaga Beach say their pensions "should not be plundered by government for specific government investment objectives." They say it should not be plundered by government for ideological purposes. These are the brothers and sisters in the unions all across this province who are writing these letters to me, I guess, because we're the only voice they seem to get in the Legislature.

Treasurer, your discussion paper clearly says, "Investments in the Ontario investment fund would be strictly voluntary." How do you intend to establish a voluntary fund if nobody's willing to volunteer?

Hon Mr Laughren: If that were true, the leader of the third party would have a point, but they are voluntary contributions. The very people of whom he speaks are serving --

Interjection: No one will volunteer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: If I could be allowed to respond to the very people who asked me the question, I'll try to do that.

The people to whom the leader of the third party refers are indeed sitting on our advisory committee. I said to the leader of the third party that there was an initial hesitation on this because I think they felt it wasn't going to be a partnership kind of arrangement where it would be a voluntary contribution of a very small portion of surplus moneys in any given year from those funds, if they decide that's what they want to do. I can assure the leader of the third party that it's going to have an arm's-length relationship to government and it will have professional management. So the leader of the third party and anyone else should lay to rest any fears he might have that this would be used in any kind of political or partisan way.

Mr Harris: I've got to tell you, Treasurer, they are very suspicious of what you call "arm's length." They've heard you change the word "patronage" to "empowerment," if anybody's looking for a definition of "empowerment," as they look across the province to the appointments.

The fact of the matter is, the brothers and sisters who contact me and ask for a voice in the Legislature do not trust your ability to manage their pensions. People are not going to hand over their retirement money to someone who can't get his own house in order, and they know that. So let's face it: If you proceed with this fund, it will not be voluntary. In fact, the rank and file membership, the card-carrying union members, are very suspicious of how you are leaning on their bosses for quid pro quos on all kinds of appointments and other things. They do not feel that it will be voluntary.

In view of that, Mr Treasurer -- the suggestion came from one interjection -- let's have a free vote, a secret-ballot vote of the brothers and sisters. They're asking for certification for strike votes. Why don't we give it to them on their own pension money?

I would ask you to consider this, Treasurer. Last fall when I introduced New Directions I called for the establishment of industrial and community development bonds. The idea would stimulate the economy at less cost and more gain. It would allow individuals and pension funds to voluntarily donate their money to the projects they deem appropriate, to the ones they have confidence in, to the ones that would benefit them and their communities. Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative to your ill-fated program to plunder the private sector pension plans?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, for the leader of the third party, the leader of the Tory party in Ontario, to cast any aspersions on patronage appointments by this government is simply beyond the pale. That really takes away any credibility that might have been in the rest of the question. But I do want to assure the leader of the third party that when he brings forth suggestions, we do give them serious consideration. I would not for a minute see community development bonds as an alternative to this fund. This is a fund where I think other jurisdictions look at us with surprise that we don't have this in place already. It was just because there was old-fashioned thinking in this province for so many years that there isn't already such a fund in place. We intend to get this province moving again.

Mr Harris: I don't know how it is that this party, which has dragged this province not only to a standstill but backwards, is going to pretend to get it moving again. I remind the Treasurer that the letter I'm reading from is dated May 5, so it's pretty current that they are very suspicious, not just initially when he announced it.

1440

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Minister of Education. For over a year I have pressed the Premier and and the ministers of Community and Social Services of the NDP government to work with educators, nutritionists, social workers and the private sector to establish nutrition programs or breakfast programs, as they are commonly called, in our schools. Minister, the rhetoric, the empty promises I've gotten from the Premier and the last two ministers of Community and Social Services have not provided one new nutritional meal for hungry children in this province. Given that studies show hungry children do not learn as well as those with a full stomach, I ask you, as Minister of Education, are you willing to take the leadership on this very important initiative?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I want to say to the leader of the third party that I very much appreciate his raising this issue. He will recall that when he introduced his private member's resolution I spoke with him to express my support for the initiative he presented. Since that time I can assure him that there have been discussions within the government. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has been very active in this area. While I'm not able to give any further details today, I can assure the leader of the third party that we are working very seriously on this matter, and I think we can expect some indications and some announcements very soon.

Mr Harris: A royal commission in New Brunswick has just recommended nutrition programs in that province. I think the minister would know that, for whatever reason, thousands of children here in this province are going to school hungry. This is the sixth time I have raised this issue with your government. A well-organized cooperative program with the private sector and the schools and those volunteers won't cost the taxpayers of this province one penny, not one cent. All it requires is time, commitment, cooperation and leadership. In my resolution last fall I asked the Premier to provide it, and he did not. The Minister of Community and Social Services has not. I'm asking you, as Minister of Education: Will you commit yourself now to provide the leadership required to bring this program on stream?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the short answer is yes. What I was trying to explain in my answer to the first part of the question was that we agree with the intent of what the leader of the third party has expressed. We may not agree with his conclusions that in fact it can all be done without any expenditure of public funds, but we certainly agree very much that we need to provide our young people with the kind of nutrition support they need. I certainly know, as a former school trustee in the city of Toronto, the kinds of needs that exist. So we don't disagree on the need for this kind of help to be provided.

I just reiterate that we, with the great assistance of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, have been working very hard on this issue. I think the member opposite will be pleased with what he sees coming out.

Mr Harris: Last November I convened a meeting with members of school boards, teachers, nutritionists and restaurant owners in fact, who were leading the way in some jurisdictions, from across the province to talk about this very great need in our province. I introduced the resolution into the Legislature last November. I have visited school breakfast programs and I've seen the huge successes they are for children who, for whatever reason, are going to school hungry.

It can happen if we all work together. The city of Toronto, because it saw no action from my resolution last November, just recently adopted this recommendation: "That the Minister of Education convene a meeting with all potential government supporters to explore the development of long-term, stable, multisectoral funding for school food programs."

Minister, will you respond to that and convene that meeting, so instead of working up this program that's going to cost the taxpayers money behind closed doors, in secret, you can in fact involve the private sector, which is willing to participate, anxious to participate and wants to come forward so that the program can be provided immediately and at no cost to the taxpayers?

Hon Mr Silipo: I know that some of those very same kinds of discussions have actually taken place, and more will continue. I will be happy to participate directly, as will, I know, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, if the need is there for those discussions to happen.

I think, as the leader of the third party indicates, we would all agree that the kind of cross-support that we want in all the communities needs to be there for this to really work well. That's also the kind of direction we've been trying to provide in the discussions and preparation. But again, on the intent of what the leader of the third party has suggested, we agree.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question also has to do with the loss of jobs in the province of Ontario. The question is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Minister, you might be aware that since September 1990 the tourism sector has been haemorrhaging jobs at an unprecedented, indeed alarming, rate. In fact the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association estimates that over the past two years approximately 95,000 jobs have disappeared in the accommodations and restaurant sector alone, not to mention the thousands lost in the other tourism sectors. In light of these alarming statistics, what guarantee can you give us that you will be putting these people back to work and restoring Ontario's tourism industry to a viable, long-term source of jobs?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I thank the member for the question, because it's also a strong concern, I know, across the province in terms of the tourism industry.

I don't think there's anyone who has been or will be the tourism minister who can make the types of guarantees the member asks for. I can say to the member that we continue to work very hard in the tourism industry, certainly trying to advocate the position that the industry takes in terms of advertising and marketing and trying to bring people who are interested in the tourism industry into this province, trying to get ourselves more tourists from all parts of the world, as well as all parts of Canada and the United States. We continue to advocate the good work that's done by the industry, and hopefully the numbers will change and we will bring more tourists in this year, which will in turn create the jobs that the member speaks of.

Mr O'Neil: Minister, I'm not satisfied with that answer at all. The thing is that I don't think you realize the extent of the difficulties facing this important sector of our economy. I'm far from sure that you understand how important the tourism industry is to the youth who depend for summer jobs on the tourism industry to help them make some money to go back to school.

The minister should also know that the same policies the government has pursued and that have been responsible for the disappearance of many of those approximately 95,000 jobs I just talked about have also robbed thousands of students of their only source of employment this summer. I'm talking about the Treasurer's $1-billion tax grab, the continuing high gas prices, the continued dithering on Sunday shopping and unprecedented hikes in the fees at provincial parks. Minister, I simply want to know how you can stand by and allow your colleagues in cabinet to plunder the industry you are charged with protecting.

1450

Hon Mr North: Mr Speaker, why did I know he wouldn't accept my first answer? I would say to the member across the floor that he does raise real concerns. I agree with him completely that they are real concerns and they need to dealt with. The part I disagree with is the fact that he believes our government and perhaps governments of the past have not dealt with tourism as something that would be in the forefront of the economy.

I believe our government has shown signs in terms of trying to deal with the problem of people being employed in the tourism industry. We've developed what we call OTEC, the Ontario Tourism Education Council, which deals with training and deals with the hospitality sector in trying to work with the private sector in developing a real program that deals with training and deals with good people to be in the tourism industry.

As I said earlier, we've dealt with all sectors and we've tried to address the issues of marketing and all these types of things that would bring people into this province, which will in turn help the economy of the province, which will in turn help the economy that is in the tourism industry.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education. It seems to me that today in the House there have been a number of concerns expressed by members of the opposition parties with regard to young people who won't have jobs this summer, with regard to children who go to school hungry, and, Mr Minister, I have another concern. It's one with regard to some special students in our education system who are labelled, as you know now, as needing basic education, who attend vocational schools and occupational schools and special courses throughout the province and who in September 1993, their parents are told, will be destreamed.

Mr Minister, this is a very important issue. We don't even know what those courses will look like. Parents don't know what kind of education these students will get. We're not sure whether they'll be in special vocational schools which are working at getting young people jobs or whether they'll be in the old academic high school in their neighbourhood. We just don't know. Yet we know today that the minister is talking about a September 1993 implementation date, with no courses, no teacher training, no textbooks. In the history of this province, this has never happened before.

I'm going to ask the minister, will you reconsider this date, considering that you have done no planning with the parents, the school boards or the teachers at this point in time, when curriculum guidelines must be printed by next October? Are you going to take a look at some flexibility around that date?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Actually I'm glad the question has been raised here, because I'm able to say in the Legislature things I have said publicly and privately to school boards, to teachers' federations, to parents' groups and to student groups on this issue. First of all, what we are setting with respect to September 1993 is not the full and complete results of destreaming; what we are suggesting for September 1993 is that we take the next significant step, which is removing the forced labelling of students into basic, general and advanced programs. We understand very clearly that it will take longer than September 1993 to have the full effects of the implementation of a destreamed grade 9 and we are quite prepared to have that happen over a number of years.

With respect specifically to the issue of courses and teacher training, let me say to the member opposite that we have been working very hard and we will continue to work hard to ensure those two issues are addressed more than adequately. We have been talking with the Ontario Teachers' Federation about a serious in-service training program for teachers and I've committed to that happening, in consultation with the teachers' federation and with the school boards. Equally, we are developing the kind of core curriculum documents our teachers will need. We take those issues very seriously and our schools will be prepared to deal with the expectations we will have for them for September 1993.

Mrs Cunningham: This minister knows, and so do members of this House, simply because they're parents, that you don't think up a change in grade 9 and say, "We'll do this in grade 9 and we'll think the following year what we're going to do in grade 10."

These children are special kids who need to know what they're going to do when they finish school. They need to know whether they're going to be in a vocational program, a technical program, an apprenticeship program, and they have the same rights as other kids who are so bright that they don't need to worry about where they're going. It is totally irresponsible to talk about changing the labelling for students in grade 9 without telling those young people what they have a right to be at the end of high school or teachers' college or colleges throughout this province. They should not be asked to go into a grade 9 program not knowing where it's going to lead.

My question again is to the minister. If you have curriculum guidelines, Mr Minister, we want to see them, not just for grade 9 but for grades 9, 10, 11 and 12, knowing that some of these children have a right to be in school as they are now for five and six years in order to finish. It's not fair to talk about teacher training, totally changing curriculum and implementing this for September 1993. I will be particularly disappointed if we don't get flexibility, as we did with the last minister, who knew she wasn't ready. Again, are you going to stick to this deadline? If you are, you should stand up today and show us where these curriculum guidelines are so these parents will know what their children are going to be doing.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me first of all assure the member opposite that anything we do will take very much into consideration the needs of students who have special needs and that there's nothing in this direction we believe we need to pursue that in any way affects the needs of students with special needs. They will continue to get the services they require in grade 9 and in years following.

Mrs Cunningham: You're wrong.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not wrong. That's exactly the intent and that's what will happen.

Mrs Cunningham: We don't know what you're doing. Show us the guidelines.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think we know what we are doing. We also know that this is an issue that's been discussed for many years. It isn't something that we've sprung on people. It's something that's been evolving. We know from the pilot projects that exist throughout the province, that were started under the previous government, that in fact we have a number of good examples of things that are happening and that we can learn from. We will ensure that the support necessary for our teachers and students is there for September 1993, given the expectation we have for September 1993, which, as I'm indicating, is simply another step in the process and not the final conclusion of the process.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Health. Since January, when cuts to our local hospital's beds and staff were announced, our city has been in an uproar. People are concerned about the process of how the decisions were made. I have received many letters of concern about the level of service and about the decisions regarding cuts and how they were made.

I've suggested to these people, these citizens of our city, that they join the hospital association, go to the annual meeting in June, voice their concerns and get some answers. We know that hospitals have long been essentially private corporations using public moneys. Madam Minister, I believe we need a more democratic governance of our hospitals. When can the Public Hospitals Act be changed?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I want to start off by saying I think many communities have of course expressed concerns about the nature of some of the announcements, but it's really important that we understand that some of those announcements were with respect to early thoughts around recovery plans that hospitals may need to put in place. I'm actually very pleased to see the kind of cooperation that has taken place across the province in many cases between hospital boards, hospital administration and workers in the hospital sector and mitigated the need for taking action on many of the announcements that have been made. I think we are finding that the community needs are coming first with respect to the planning of program and delivery shifts.

Having said that, I think what the member raises is the fact that from community to community there are different structures in place in terms of how people can participate in decision-making within their community hospitals around those very important decisions of program changes and delivery of service. The Public Hospitals Act had been reviewed by a task force for about two years. Recently there was a report released with recommendations. The ministry is reviewing that. I hope to be able to move on legislative revisions in short order. We were aiming for this fall. That may be optimistic and it may be next year, but it is on my agenda to move on it.

Ms Harrington: Madam Minister, I would also like to know how the ordinary citizens in my city can be involved in this process of looking at that report and coming up with some changes to the hospitals act.

1500

Hon Ms Lankin: The task force recommendations were put together by people from the hospital sector and the community. There was a lot of input there, but it was a task force, it is a report and it does need to be reviewed by a larger group of people and have public input. Some time ago I made an announcement that we would be holding hearings. I'm pleased to let the member know that the member for Simcoe Centre, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, will be conducting a series of hearings across the province this summer. We're holding information meetings to facilitate that with special groups like consumer and volunteer groups, aboriginal groups, unions, workers' groups, to give them some background about the changes that are being recommended in the task force report.

In the five or six meetings we'll be holding across the province, we hope to get a range of responses that will at least inform us in terms of the kind of recommendations we bring forward in legislation. Of course, following that as it goes through the legislative process, members of the House and the public will be able to participate in the process as well.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whose responsibility it is to protect the consumers of this province. Consumers in many parts of Ontario awoke this week to huge and unjustified increases in gasoline prices, which as always were hiked across the board by all oil companies, by the same amount and at the same time within communities across the province.

People who voted for your government may not have believed you could manage the economy and likely didn't agree with all the policies you had on your platform, but from your rhetoric and policy pronouncements they likely believed you would protect the interests of the little person, the consumer. Why have you abandoned the consumers of this province and tourism and other industries, which rely on reasonably priced gasoline? Why have you continued to permit the gouging of the consumer by unrepentant gasoline companies in Ontario, which are charging the people of Ottawa 58.9 cents a litre and jacking up the price in Toronto, St Catharines, London and Windsor by six cents a litre or 27 cents a gallon?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): I would like to reframe the member's question slightly, because in his question he talked about giant Ontario oil companies when in fact he was talking about giant Canadian oil companies, and the problem to which the member for St Catharines refers is in fact a national problem. The price increases to which he refers are not price increases that have been imposed exclusively in the province of Ontario this week; they have been imposed right across the country. In fact, the worst price increases occurred in the city of Vancouver.

As the member well knows, the legislation which governs the operation of those national companies is federal. We continue to monitor, and when we can under legislation determine that we in fact have legal grounds on which to accomplish something, we will proceed. But the problem the member refers to is a national one, not provincial.

Mr Bradley: I'm surprised to hear on that side of the House an apologist for multinational corporations. I'm sure that in the union halls, the community centres and the municipal council chambers across Ontario, you and your colleagues, when in opposition and on the election campaign trail, denounced gas price increases and the companies that put them into effect. In fact, in Sudbury in August 1990, Bob Rae said, "I really think consumers are being ripped off by the gas companies."

In view of the past pronouncements, promises and rhetoric of the NDP on this issue, why don't you get out of the back pocket of the oil companies in this province -- a place where the NDP never thought it'd be, but it is -- and start to protect the consumers from the gouging and price-fixing practices of the multinational corporate monopoly, which imposes unnecessarily high and unfair gasoline prices on Ontario residents and those who visit our province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll simply say, with respect to the back-pocket part of the member's question, that if he suggests this government is in the back pocket of the oil companies in this country, it's a pretty crowded back pocket, and that perhaps the leader of his federal party, scrambling to try to get out of the very same pocket, is an impediment to any progress by anyone on this issue.

Having said that, my ministry continues to monitor the price increases. We have legislation in this province which allows us to deal with certain aspects of the pricing policies around oil and gas. When we can determine that there has been a violation that we can proceed to prosecute we'll deal with that violation, but the primary responsibility for ensuring that there is no price-fixing between the national oil companies in this country is not one that falls to this government.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. The Stratford Beacon Herald reported on Saturday, May 23, that this minister will recommend to the treasury board that no extra funding be provided to the Art Gallery of Ontario. However, AGO officials have never received this information from the ministry, despite the fact that they've made repeated requests for the information about the 1992-93 operating grant. If the AGO receives a $9.5-million operating grant, the rumoured amount, the gallery will have to lay off 250 employees. The job losses would not stop there, as the gallery will be reduced to a core operation without its outreach programs, which provide employment in galleries all across Ontario. As well, the businesses in the vicinity of the AGO would suffer a loss of revenue due to the severe reduction in the AGO's visitors, 50% of whom are tourists. What a blow both to the cultural and tourism industries of Ontario.

My question, Madam Minister, is this: Can you confirm that it was your advice to the treasury board not to increase the AGO's operating grant? If so, would you give the reasons for that recommendation and tell this House why you did not extend the courtesy of advising AGO before you conveyed that information to the media?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): That was an interview I had in my home riding. It was incorrect information. I never said I was not giving an increase to the AGO. The newspaper simply misquoted me.

Mrs Marland: Did the newspaper misquote you that "MPP Karen Haslam gives herself A-plus for effort"? I suppose we can assume you were misquoted then too.

For every dollar this government invests in the arts the economy benefits by $24. This multiplier effect works in reverse when arts funding is cut. What wisdom can there be, then, in a decision that would cause substantial losses of jobs, cultural and tourism services and businesses not only in Toronto but throughout Ontario?

To start with, unemployment insurance for AGO's 250 laid-off employees would cost taxpayers $4.6 million for 40 weeks. This amount is based on an increase of $1 million in the gallery's operating grant. The job losses will be even greater if the gallery receives no increase.

My question, again, Madam Minister, is this: Is this your vision for the future of the arts in Ontario? Do you intend to shut down the AGO with over $500 million worth of work? Do you intend to reduce the services at the regional galleries and cause job losses in the cultural and tourism sectors throughout the province? Is that what you want for the future of Ontario?

1510

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, it was a rather long question and I will have a rather long answer. I gave myself an A-plus for effort; I didn't give myself an A-plus for results. I gave myself an A-plus for effort because in my ministry we've got a new publishing centre, we have a new consultation called From the Ground Up, I have a new telecommunication thing. So my A-plus was for effort.

Let me tell the member a little about the Art Gallery of Ontario. The AGO does receive from this ministry $8.5 million. They have never informed me or my ministry that they will close the doors when I give them $8.5 million a year. They are not an agency; they are a transfer payment recipient. As far as additional funding, they have had $4 million in the last year for one-time funding to help with pay equity.

Just recently, in the early part of the year, I met with all the chairs of all the agencies and the AGO. I made it very clear to those chairs that these are tight financial times and that I expected all my agencies, including the Art Gallery of Ontario, to stay within their budgets and not run up a deficit, and that my priorities were outreach, education and jobs. They know where I stand.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, the Essex County District Health Council, with Mary Jean Gallagher as chair, and all its members, are hard at work in Windsor as they study the rationalization of acute hospital services. As well, I trust they will have the concerns of hospital workers high on their list. The council has given its assurance that it will work closely with all segments of the health care community, citizens and labour. This goes hand in hand with our commitment to work together.

Madam Minister, your ministry provided $500,000 on May 5 to help see this goal fulfilled. It is a goal we'll all strive to maintain as we enter the next century and we learn to spend money more wisely while continuing to maintain the best health care system in the world.

Could the minister give the good people of Windsor-Sandwich more details about the rationalization process and how it will affect hospital service in Windsor in the coming years?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the member's question and I think it's important to point out to all members that the process in Windsor is an important example of the kind of cooperation we see taking place in good health care planning in communities, being led by district health councils and involving all of the health partners.

In the case of Windsor, of course, the discussion that has been taking place started with a proposal from the hospitals and the DHC that perhaps in looking at a situation of too many acute care beds for the needs of the community, there needed to be a process of turning those resources into other health resources the community needed. That led them to a cooperative process of consulting with the community.

What I think the member will see over the course of the next few months is a series of consultations led by local community partners with the community around looking at facilities, looking at the health care services that are required and looking at what's going to happen to the workers whose jobs have shifted from institution to community.

We expect that an initial report will be ready from the community by the fall. I can assure the member that the process being undertaken with provincial guidelines ensures that planning is being done to meet local health needs that are identified. His community can be assured of that as the basis for any planning process.

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question also is for the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for the quality of health care in Ontario.

The minister will know that between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of biomedical waste are generated in Ontario each year, and that 6,000 tonnes of that waste are burned in hospital incinerators but only one of those incinerators meets environmental protection standards for air pollution control. Hospitals desperately need funding to bring incinerators to safe standards or to introduce alternative technologies such as steam autoclaving or microwaving to deal with those wastes.

The Ministry of Health had $15 million in its budget when this government took office to upgrade hospital incinerators and to introduce regional programs. Not one dime of that money has been spent to date. This is more than an environmental issue; this is a health issue.

I'm asking the Minister of Health when she will make funds available from her budget so that toxins from the unsafe incineration of biomedical wastes aren't themselves a health hazard to the people of Ontario.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): As a result of this being an issue that is being worked on by two ministries, I'll refer that question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me say to the member that I agree entirely that it is indeed a very serious problem and it is a health problem. That's why, in collaboration with my colleague the Minister of Health, we have been jointly working on how to deal with the issue in a comprehensive way. There is not just the very real problem of the existing incinerators which don't meet any effective standards, but the whole question of export, which the member has raised, as well as the fact that many of these incinerators are being used to burn materials that are not strictly biomedical. I am very pleased to be able to say to the House that very shortly we will be able to release a comprehensive approach to what has been a long-standing problem.

Mrs Sullivan: Last October people in northwestern Ontario were informed that there would be no funding available for a regional program to deal with biomedical wastes. The question then to the Minister of the Environment becomes: If she has ruled out state-of-the-art regional facilities and decided that individual hospitals will be responsible for their own wastes and that other biomedical waste generators will have to fend for themselves, when will money be made available to those hospitals to either close down their unsafe incinerators or upgrade them to safe standards? Also, will money be made available to hospitals for 3R programs and other similar programs that will reduce the total amount of biomedical waste that ends up in incineration programs?

Hon Mrs Grier: It's precisely because so much of the waste that is now being incinerated should be dealt with in other ways, whether by the 3Rs or by using some of the new technologies, that we have taken an in-depth look at the entire problem, a problem that, I must say, was exacerbated by the policies introduced by the last government which exempted facilities from certain provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act if they were less than 10 --

Mrs Sullivan: You have not changed one thing. If you were so upset about, why didn't you change it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and that led to a plethora of proposals for private sector medical waste facilities that gave rise to a great deal of --

Mrs Sullivan: You didn't change one thing, not one thing.

Hon Mrs Grier: But I know the member has a very sincere interest in helping us to now resolve the problem we inherited. I can assure her that in the discussions that are under way between myself and the Minister of Health we of course recognize a financial problem is there for many hospitals and it has to be part of the solution.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions?

1520

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a question of privilege relating to standing order 31(a) and standing order 31(e) relative to ministerial statements and responses. I'll be very brief, but I think it's incumbent upon me, on my own behalf and that of some of my colleagues who have raised concerns, to raise this issue with you.

Standing order 31(a) says, "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed." Standing order 31(e) states, "Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

From time to time, Mr Speaker, comments have been made by the opposition parties about the nature of ministerial statements, whether they are appropriately ministerial statements or not, and you have ruled that it's not within your discretion to indicate what the subject matter should be or how relevant the subject matter should be.

With respect to 31(e), the responses, I have observed on a regular basis that opposition members have responded on matters relative to the ministry that weren't directly on the point of the statement. Many times, from my observation and observations of my colleagues, and I'm sure the record will point it out, the members who were doing the responses were not interrupted or called to order by the Chair.

My point of privilege is, is there a standard to which the Chair adheres? If there is, I would appreciate, if you would reserve decision on it, some indication as to what the standard or what the rule should be. Second, will that be enforced equally to all the members, because I sense my comments were no more or less out of order than many comments that were made by opposition members at the time. I feel my privileges were infringed upon.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Ottawa West, I understand the concern which he brings to my attention. He should know that it has been a practice in this House, and indeed previous speakers have commented upon it, that the responses to statements should be in keeping with the statement itself.

I'm pleased to take a look at the matter and provide the member with some background information about it, if that would be helpful. I will say in closing that I do not like interrupting members at any time because the time is precious. The Chair is obliged to do so when something is out of order. The Chair is also here to assist in whatever way possible to help the members in exercising their responsibilities. But I will take a look and provide the member with some background information; I'd be pleased to do that.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which 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 impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

It's signed by individuals of Wrigley Canada Inc. I have attached my signature.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned residents of Ontario which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 375 haemophiliacs in Ontario were infected with the virus which causes AIDS through contaminated blood products; and

"Whereas this was an avoidable medical catastrophe of enormous proportions; and

"Whereas the federal government has accepted its share of responsibility and provided financial assistance to HIV-infected haemophiliacs; and

"Whereas the federal government has requested that each province also provide compensation for HIV-infected haemophiliacs,

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

"That the government of Ontario must share the responsibility and provide compensation."

ACCESS TO PERMANENT HOUSING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): To the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As housing is a basic human right and as all residents of Ontario have a right to adequate housing,

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario not to cut funding to the access to permanent housing initiatives in the next fiscal year."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 10 Ontario residents. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"The proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out necessary major repairs to residential buildings.

"This bill, if enacted, will result in the private sector being unable to build new residential rental housing, with an ensuing loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

"This bill will ensure that the non-profit housing sector will be the only builder of new residential rental units, at enormous cost to the Ontario taxpayers.

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

"(a) To cancel the proposed Rent Control Act;

"(b) 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

"(c) 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 and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."

I have affixed my signature.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have two petitions to present to the House. The first petition is addressed 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."

LANDFILL SITE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The second petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the residents of the township of East Luther object to the decision made by the municipalities of Dufferin county waste management master plan steering committee to locate a landfill site in East Luther township; and

"Whereas the residents of the township of East Luther feel very strongly that the council of East Luther should be considering recycling as the process of choice for dealing with the problem of waste management and that a new disposal site be considered only as a last resort and only for the use of the local residents,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, not to approve this landfill site and look at other means of waste management."

There are approximately 300 signatures on this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to 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 affix my signature to the petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition 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."

It is signed by about 48 individuals from the province of Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which 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 of the Labour Relations Act will have on investments and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

It's been signed by individuals of Merit Contractors of Niagara and I have signed my name.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Mississauga North, do you have many petitions?

Mr Offer: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: I would suggest that you read them.

Mr Offer: If there are no other members with petitions, I will read a further petition, which is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas investment and job creation is 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 of the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

That petition has been signed by individuals of Merit Contractors of Niagara, Rashotte Electric, Mastico Industries Ltd, the Canadian Salt Co Ltd, Kenmore, Teledyne Canada, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, Pavex Canada Ltd, Permanent Lafarge, Avesta Stainless Inc, King Cross Contracting Ltd, Valvoline Canada Ltd, H.H. Robertson Inc, Northland Bitulithic Ltd, Columbia-MBF, Hyundai Auto Canada Inc, Rockwell International, J-AAR Contracting, Canron Inc Eastern Structural Division, Anachemia Solvents Ltd, Vac-Aero International Inc, Victoria Electric of Kitchener Ltd, Ennis-Paikin Steel Ltd, Leonard Neal of Tamco Ltd, Normbau 2000, the Welmar Group, Don Hearn and Sons Inc, Hoffman Industries of Canada Ltd. I have affixed my signature thereto.

1530

I have a further series of petitions which read 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 of the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

That petition has been signed by individuals of Demik Construction Ltd, Teledyne Canada, Timbel Ltd, St Lawrence Cement, Permanent Concrete, AIS Communications Ltd, Tribury Construction Ltd, McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd, Glegg Water Conditioning Inc, Burlington Stamping, Inc, Ira McDonald Construction Ltd, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co Ltd, Delta Faucet Canada, Home Hardware and Toddglen Construction Ltd. I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fifth report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I do not, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario;

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Vaughan;

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Town of Caledon.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statute be remitted on Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario, and Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRI-DELTA OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr White, on behalf of Ms Akande, moved first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Tri-Delta of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr White, on behalf of Mr Marchese, moved first reading of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

Mr Allen moved first reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la négociation collective dans les collèges et la Loi sur le ministère des Collèges et Universités.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): If I could just say a word about the purpose of this bill, it is, in the first instance, to improve the effectiveness of collective bargaining in the college system. The act will extend bargaining rights to all part-time staff working on a regular and continuing basis. The act also calls for establishing a framework for an employers' association to be composed of chairs of the boards of governors and the president of each college. Also, the act will transfer the responsibility for collective bargaining from the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology to the employers' association.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.

Motion agreed to.

1540

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I will keep my remarks very brief. I hadn't intended to speak, but since I have the privilege of addressing the Minister of Education, I would ask, as I state the purpose of this bill, that the minister seriously consider the amendment I have put forward to the Education Act. I believe it will address the very serious issue of the poverty cycle. It will address the very serious issue of illiteracy in this province.

The purpose of the bill is to allow equal access to schools for all persons of school age residing in Ontario. The bill repeals the provision in the act that imposes a mandatory fee on non-Canadian citizens who were admitted to the school by a school board. We have a situation in this province where children are often taken out of the system because parents are fearful of having to expose that they are here illegally. Therefore, the sins of the parents are visited on the child who is denied an education because of this, I believe, outdated provision of the Education Act.

I am hopeful the government will seriously consider passing this amendment to the act. It would permit the boards, in a permissive way, to waive the fees to ensure that those children who deserve to have an education, who need to have an education, who in all likelihood will reside in this province, being not only functionally illiterate but truly illiterate and uneducated because they've been denied access to education because of the status of their parents -- I'm hopeful that during the debate on this bill the Minister of Education will indeed support it and see its passage.

PARKING INFRACTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1922 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS DE STATIONNEMENT

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infractions provinciales et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions de stationnement.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Briefly, we have received over the last year or so many complaints that the process for dealing with parking tickets is unduly complicated and that sometimes errors are made in the recording of licence plates on parking tickets. We hope this legislation will provide a more sure system of having tickets issued that are correct on their face. We believe it will also result in a more efficient use of court time in terms of the processing of convictions. Finally, it will allow those who are issued a ticket that is improper or somehow wrong to have the issuance of the ticket more easily and more quickly withdrawn.

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Ms Churley moved first reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des services relatifs au jeu.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm pleased to introduce for first reading the new Gaming Services Act. Charitable gaming was first permitted in Ontario in 1970. Since then it has evolved from basic church basement entertainment to the multi-billion-dollar business we see today. With this explosive growth have come a number of problems relating to accountability in the charitable gaming marketplace and the proliferation of commercial bingo halls. As an interim measure to deal with these concerns, a moratorium was placed on the licensees of bingos in new commercial facilities in 1989.

Today, I'm introducing comprehensive gaming services legislation to ensure that charities receive their fair share of the proceeds of charitable gaming. The Gaming Services Act will regulate the activities, services and fees of commercial participants in Ontario's charitable gaming industry and require the registration of those who provide gaming services, supplies and premises in accordance with high standards of honesty, integrity and financial responsibility.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is committed to discussions with the first nations on gaming. The Gaming Services Act will pave the way for talks with the first nations relating to control, regulation and administration of gaming activities on their reserves.

I would like to emphasize that this bill focuses on the charitable component of gaming in Ontario and is separate from the issue of casino gambling. I urge all members to support this bill, which we believe will ultimately lead to a more honest and equitable marketplace for all participants in charitable gaming in Ontario.

SCHOOL BOARD FINANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne le financement des conseils scolaires.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Briefly, there are two areas covered by these amendments. The first would increase the borrowing limit for school boards which are under supervision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the prior approval of the Minister of Education.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Deficit financing; what a great idea.

Hon Mr Silipo: It does not deal with the deficit financing the members opposite are talking about.

The second area involves changes to various acts with regard to the division of property taxes between public and separate school boards. It will provide for the division of property taxes payable by the crown, crown agencies, municipalities, local boards and conservation authorities in an equitable manner between public and separate school purposes.

This amendment would also permit other corporations without share capital and corporations sold to divide their property taxes between public and separate school purposes according to their choice. This last provision was a provision that was in the former Bill 125.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): When we adjourned, we were dealing with Ms Poole's amendment. Ms Poole moved 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."

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am quite sure that the Minister of Housing would expect that this bill is worth, in her opinion, at least a quorum in the House.

The Chair: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1552

The Chair: A quorum is now present.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I believe I was in the middle of a sentence when last we adjourned the committee, so perhaps if I started by completing that sentence, at the time of adjournment I was talking about the various groups in society that are very strong on the notion of having an avenue of appeal.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What's the end of the sentence?

Ms Poole: Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, has asked, "What's the end of the sentence?" I have Hansard. My last sentence was, "Everybody wants an appeal, and the demands for an appeal system have not -- "

Then the government whip adjourned us, so what can I say? The demands for an appeal system have not abated since that time. The Federation of Metropolitan Toronto Tenants' Associations, the Tenant Advocacy Group, the Ottawa-Carleton Tenants' Association, the Fair Rental Policy Organization, AFFORD, all these various groups -- as you can notice, some of them are tenants, some of them are landlords, but it's one of the rare things they have actually reached unanimity on, that they want an appeal board.

The minister, in her response as to why this government would not grant the right of appeal to tenants and landlords in this province, mentioned the fact that this system is vastly different from Bill 51's system. Under Bill 51, she said, it was administrative review with an appeal. The minister said that under this system in most cases there is now a right of automatic hearing, so therefore you don't need appeal. I'd just like to remind the minister and the House, through you, Mr Chair, that when this legislation was first tabled in June 1991 the system was one of administrative review and only if a landlord and a tenant requested an automatic hearing within 15 days could there be a hearing process. In the vast majority of cases it would end up as administrative review. At that stage, was there an appeal when it was still administrative review? The answer is no.

Since then, due to various pressures, including the opposition and certainly tenant and landlord groups, the minister has put in an amendment to the legislation that was approved by the standing committee on general government that allows a hearing. But the fact of the matter is that if the minister is basing her lack of need for appeal on the fact that it was originally administrative review under Bill 51 and it isn't here, I say to her there was no appeal in this legislation we're looking at right now when it was administrative review. So it just doesn't bear water, Madam Minister.

The other point the minister made which somewhat puzzled me was that Dr Ray's comments were actually invalid or no longer necessary because we had gone to a system where in most cases it would be a right of automatic hearing. If you look at what I shared with the House as Dr Ray's reasons for wanting the right of appeal, they're still as valid when you have a hearing as when you had an administrative review.

The first thing Dr Ray said was that there should be a separation of powers and that we needed an independent, arm's-length appeal board, because this would operate independently of perceived or real political influence and would be free also of influence from the ministerial and bureaucratic side.

We look at the fact that this legislation now has a right of automatic hearing. Does that give us independence? No. Does it give an arm's-length decision? No. Does it prohibit interference by the minister's office or the ministry, the bureaucratic side? The answer to all those questions is no. So the fact that you've now changed it to automatic hearing, while it was a welcome amendment, which I believe I made personally and with the support of the government in the 99th hour or whatever we were in at that particular point, does not negate the need for appeal.

The second point Dr Ray brought up was the prohibitive cost of appealing through the Divisional Court, which this legislation allows only in a very narrow way. Divisional Court is extremely expensive. Most tenants and most small landlords cannot afford to go to Divisional Court. This is not changed by the fact that you have hearings instead of administrative review. I look at Dr Ray's arguments and I find them just as valid with the fact that we have hearings as they were if we had administrative review.

On Monday, when we last were debating this particular section of the bill, I mentioned that the member for Oriole had done a survey in her riding of 15,000 tenants. Of those who responded, 91.59% said the Liberal caucus should not support rent legislation that does not provide adequate appeal for rent review orders. I did a very similar type of survey in Don Mills of 26,000 tenant households and in that particular instance 87.6% of the tenants who responded said the Liberal caucus should not support rent legislation that does not provide adequate appeal.

I don't think there's any doubt that this legislation does not allow adequate appeal. It allows appeal on, I think the minister said, very serious errors -- not "complex"; let me be very specific about that. Serious errors could in the discretion of the rent review officer or the chief rent review officer be reviewed within one year, but it's the same parties reviewing the same information. So how do we get independence? How do we get an arm's-length decision? Think of human nature. Is it human nature to want to admit you made a mistake? Chances are you don't want to admit you and your organization made a mistake.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm listening very carefully to the member for Eglinton, and I think more people should hear these thoughts. I don't believe there's a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1601

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present.

Ms Poole: I'm certainly grateful to the member for Dufferin-Peel for wanting as many people as possible to hear the words I have to say today. I must have a devious mind, because I thought he was actually a little bored by what I had to say and wanted a break; but I'm sure that wasn't the case.

As I was saying just before we had to break so that the government members could come in and listen to what I had to say, the right of appeal is one of democratic history and precedent in this province. It was suggested, when we were in the standing committee on general government, by one of the government members that it was actually possible to have only one level and have it operate very efficiently. I believe the example given was the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which doesn't have a right of appeal per se. When I responded to that government member's comments in general government, what I said was if we only had one level and if it was, as the labour relations board is, independently appointed, if it was an arm's-length body, then I would have far less of a problem with not having an appeal process.

It is very clear this legislation does not have that arm's-length capacity. The rent officers are appointed by the ministry. The policy direction is provided by the ministry and by the minister. Any in-house appeal of serious errors by the rent review officer is made within the system. There's no opportunity for an independent, arm's-length body to give advice whether indeed the ministry has erred.

A hearings process is welcome, but as an opposition member, Madam Minister, I have to say it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't abrogate the need for an appeals board, so I sincerely hope that on behalf of tenants and landlords in this province you will reconsider this position and reinstate the appeals board, which, in my opinion, was one of the finest aspects of Bill 51 and is sorely needed for this legislation.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Mr Tilson: There's no question the Progressive Conservative caucus has long supported the principle of an appeal process in legislation such as this. Of course we are supporting the amendment, notwithstanding the fact the Liberal caucus voted in favour of this bill and indeed the whole arrangement of this bill on second reading. We find it rather astounding that the critic for the Liberal Party would stand in this committee today and all through the hearings and take the position she has been taking when she has supported the bill. They supported Bill 4 and they support Bill 121. The whole process with respect to the appeal process -- I must say the position they're taking now is rather astounding, since they have supported the government's position in the past.

Our party, of course, is in favour of an appeal process. I can't understand the government's position in taking that away. There is no other piece of legislation that I know of in Ontario on this type of hearing process where there isn't some sort of an appeal where individuals, whether they be landlords or tenants, have the right to proceed to hear a second opinion.

There are biases. Civil servants are biased. Gosh knows the Minister of Housing is biased. Gosh knows the critic for the Liberal Party is biased. I'm biased. I don't even like the bill. I don't mind saying that; I'm biased. So we're all biased in our opinions. Judges are biased and that's why you have an appeal process in the whole judicial system. Whether individuals who make decisions be administrators or whether the decisions be quasi-judicial decisions or whether they be simply bureaucratic decisions, there should be a right to appeal those decisions because of their biases.

It's unfortunate that now the landlords in this province and the tenants in this province will not have that right. There will be no right to appeal unless it's one of law, so we'll have to hope that all the problems will be expanded into areas of law -- a rather astounding position for the great, fair New Democratic Party to take, to say that you won't have the right to appeal. There's no right to appeal in this legislation. Oh, yes, they've referred to clerical errors and the power to reconsider. The Minister of Housing, when we last spoke, commented on that, but that's not an appeal process. That's the same people who made the decision in the first occurrence making another decision.

But what if that person is biased? I have great faith in our civil service and I have great faith in our judicial system, but people are biased, for whatever reason. They may not like the people who are appearing before them, whether it's the landlord or the tenant. It could be some innocent matter. Naturally, then, if it's an unfair decision, on anything whatsoever, because all the t's aren't crossed or all the i's dotted in this legislation -- there are all kinds of holes that people will find, whether it's landlords' associations or whether it's tenants' associations -- there will be holes and there will be unfair decisions that will be made by the rent officers.

We don't even know what a lot of the words mean. The draft regulations, I understand -- and I must confess the minister corrected me in saying that they were presented some time ago. I haven't seen them, but I am concerned with many of the strange definitions we're talking about. The critic for our party, Mrs Marland, has spent a great deal of time on the lack of training that is being planned for these individuals. This is a very technical, complicated bill, and we've waited for the minister to come forward with comments as to how the rent officers are going to be trained to interpret what in the world "neglect" means, what in the world "inadequate maintenance" means. They sound simple enough, but I can assure you that there will be all kinds of definitions being made. And where will the principle of stare decisis be made or used or enforced, or will it be that one rent officer has one meaning for what neglect means and another rent officer has another meaning for what neglect means? How those are determined is through the appeal process, where members of the appeal board can put forward their interpretation as to what that means. That's how you formulate law. That's how you formulate the landlord and tenant law.

There's no question that reference has been made to the chairman of the Rent Review Hearings Board, who has provided members of the government services committee with its comments. It's an independent body of which Mr Ray is the chairman, and he did summarize his concerns of the lack of an appeal process. I think this is one of our major concerns that this government is not listening to both the landlords and the tenants of this province and not putting forward an appeal process.

Just quoting from a memorandum from all board members on this subject of a lack of appeal process -- members of the committee have it; it's dated November 28, 1991 -- he talked about a summary of the board's concerns over the absence of an independent appeal tribunal mechanism within the proposed Rent Control Act. Here we have an independent group of individuals, the Rent Review Hearings Board, which has been hearing all the current decisions under Bill 51, and this is what Mr Ray and his board members have to say: "Those parties who most need an affordable, accessible and expeditious appeal mechanism will not be served. The vast majority of unrepresented tenants and small landlords cannot afford the costly appeal process, the costs of which are counted in tens of thousands of dollars."

1610

There's no question what this bill says. It's only on a matter of law that you're going to be able to go to the Divisional Court. There's nothing with respect to any other aspect. If you can afford a fancy representative for large tenants' or landlords' associations, maybe they can persuade these untrained rent officers to understand their position and hope they won't be biased.

There is no independence, either actual or perceived, of the decision-makers. Decisions will made with direct access in control of the civil servants in the ministry also responsible for drafting the act and regulations and who in turn are directly responsible to the minister. There is a total absence of the principle of "He who hears decides." We're going to have someone who will be going to these rent officers or going around trying to define inadequate maintenance and neglect and that's it. Whatever they say goes. Maybe there's inadequate maintenance; maybe there isn't. If that's not correct, whether it's tenants or landlords, there is no appeal process unless there's some definition of law that hasn't been followed.

The third point is that courts are increasingly deferring to the findings of specialized tribunals of competent jurisdiction. It has been found there's no other system of appeal that compares with the recognized expertise of such tribunals.

The Rent Review Hearings Board is such a tribunal of very experienced individuals to hear what was complicated and now has become even more complicated matters of law and interpretation. Can you imagine the average tenant or landlord trying to understand what in the world Bill 121 says and what they can and cannot do?

Everyone in the world can't afford a lawyer. Everyone in the world can't afford representation from tenants' associations or representation from landlords' associations, which in turn can afford lawyers, consultants or people who can afford to assist them. They all can't do that. What are they going to do? They are going to have to rely on these untrained rent officers. The minister, I'm sure, will stand shortly and say they will be trained. I question the fact that there is still no appeal process whether they are trained, biased or unbiased. There's no appeal process on matters of fact.

It may well be that she is going to say, "Well, it'll be cheaper." Sure, justice can be expensive. To have an appeal tribunal can be a delay. Maybe that's what they're trying to do: to say if you don't have justice, well, it's cheaper. I find it regrettable that they would take that position.

The absence of an independent tribunal appeal process takes a basic right away from those most in need of protection by the government: thousands of tenants and small landlords. That's what we're looking for: protection from the government. Our government, whether it's federal, provincial, municipal -- everything's becoming so big. Everything's so difficult to understand. This bill is difficult to understand and I've sat through many of the hearings, whether it's Bill 4 or Bill 121, and I understand a lot of legal principles, but I have a lot of difficulty understanding the whole process of this bill. Can you imagine someone who has had no experience, no legal training, trying to understand some of these things?

Some of the comments that the critic for the Liberal Party has spent time on I won't spend too much more time on, other than to elaborate on some of the issues that were raised by the Rent Review Hearings Board. Mr Ray, who presented this paper to the committee, said that historically the independent appeal process is widely used. He said:

"The volume of appeals from rent review services to the board has risen sharply from the proportion of appeals in the Residential Tenancy Commission, hovering around 25%. There were criticisms of the Residential Tenancy Commission that in-house appeals were not sufficiently independent to ensure the decisions were made free of influence and policy guidelines of the commission. The appeals to the board under the current legislation do not bear this criticism, and they have been large in number, pointing to a very real need of being served in an unbiased fashion."

I agree, but all that's gone. This appeal process that we now have in place under Bill 51 is gone, and the tenant and the landlord will be left to who knows what type of decision that's going to be made by the untrained rent officer.

He also talked about appeal tribunals being more cost-effective and expeditious. It may well be that the current government doesn't understand the process, that maybe it has received complaints about the cost of hiring experts to go to the current appeal board. So do away with it. That's what they say.

It may well be, and Mr Ray talks about this, that there should be less emphasis on going to the courts. This bill, I can assure you, will be challenged in the courts. There will be a great deal of time and money spent on the validity and what many of these words mean in the courts on questions of law, because the bill certainly doesn't define it. The rent officers have no idea what they mean.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think it's now another time to call for a quorum.

The Chair: I'll ask the table to verify if there is a quorum or not.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1619

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present.

Mr Tilson: In conclusion, I believe I can't be more clear that our party supports an appeal process. Certainly an appeal process has been inherent in the rent review legislation since it was first instituted, and it has worked. It has provided some fair decisions. Due to this legislation's lack of definitions and proper explanations of many of the terms and terminology, and elaboration on many of the clauses put forward, this legislation cries out for an appeal process. What in the world does this legislation mean? What are these people going to do?

A decision is made. "Well, the rent officer made it; it must be okay." That's not the way you do business in this province. That's not the way at all. You do it in a systematic, quasi-judicial process so that, of those initial decisions, a right of appeal can be made. All that is gone.

It's absolutely unheard of in any other piece of legislation or any other jurisdiction that I've heard of that this whole process, based on undetermined legislation, undetermined definitions, inadequate definitions, biased opinions of civil servants, can be arbitrarily decided by one person, whose training even the minister can't discern, and that's not appealable. That is astounding and inexcusable. Therefore, I would ask the members of this committee to support this amendment and any other amendment that's put forward with respect to re-establishing an appeal process.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The members of the rent review appeals board, through the letter that was distributed to members of the committee by Dr Ratna Ray, who was the chair of that board, have expressed the view that the work they have done as appeals officers under the existing legislation has been good work, and I'm glad to know that. I think that given the way Bill 51 operated, where, first of all, there was an administrative decision on a rent determination and then there was a possibility of appeals, it was good that people could appeal to members sitting on the appeals board who thought that the work they were doing was important work. I'm not surprised either that they should regret that their services are not going to be used in the same way under this new legislation. I don't think anybody here would be surprised at that.

I would like to suggest that the board and the fine work that it has carried on is so familiar to the member for Dufferin-Peel that he doesn't recognize that Dr Ray is not a man, a "he," but a woman. He clearly is not terribly familiar with the work of the board.

He has suggested so often that the people who will be making the initial determination after a hearing, who are the rent control officers, will be untrained. He says it so often that the unsuspecting person hearing this might think that in fact we have written into the legislation that the rent officers are going to be untrained. Indeed, I'd like to disabuse any of our listeners from that belief. We have not suggested that they be untrained; in fact, they will be trained.

He has suggested that the government has taken the position of doing away with the appeals board because it's cheaper. That isn't what we've suggested. It will be cheaper, but what it will be, much more than that, is more effective. We have had the situation where decisions made on administrative review are held up for months before the appeals board has been able to get at them. We've had overlapping decisions and situations where rent decisions that should be made for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 are still held up with appeals board hearings and then court reviews from 1987 rent determinations, the last time I looked at the backlog. This has been an appalling mess. We hope to straighten it out and we hope to provide good service for the public of Ontario, both landlord and tenant, by providing assistance where, after a hearing, there will be a determination.

If there is an error, it will be reviewed not by the same people as the member for Dufferin-Peel has suggested but by different people. The rent officer will make the initial determination. It is the chief rent officer, a different person or a delegate of the chief rent officer who will do the review if an error is brought to the attention of the chief rent officer. That process has been suggested to us by comments made by the Ombudsman.

I'd also like to suggest to the Liberal critic, who has put forward as good a case as can be made for having an appeal process within a rent control bill, that in fact the surveys she has quoted us are quite extraordinary surveys. To say to somebody, "Do you want adequate appeal?" -- of course everybody wants adequate appeal. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that what we have provided within this legislation is a fair hearing process. We have provided the possibility, where there is an error brought to the attention of the chief rent officer, of a review by a different person.

All these people, of course, will be public servants in the employ of Ontario. They are not people I personally appoint. These are people who are hired to carry out the legislative administrative duties of the public servants of Ontario. They will carry out the intent of this legislation. These are people who are not going to be interfered with by a minister -- not by this minister, not by any minister, and they are not going to be interfered with by ministerial staff when they make their decisions -- not by this minister's staff, not by any minister's staff.

I don't think that either party across would suggest that it would expect, were it in government, that the Minister of Housing or staff of the Ministry of Housing would interfere in a rent determination hearing under whatever legislation. I think it is quite scandalous to suggest that or to imply it. It really does give a very bad impression to the public of Ontario to have opposition members suggesting that kind of thing. I think it is unwise and in fact unpardonable to imply it. These people, who will be carrying out their duties to the very best of their abilities and with the best training that can be provided for them, will make determinations to the best of their judgement. I think that's the best we can ask for.

Of course there will be contested decisions. There are within the legislation opportunities to have serious errors addressed. If beyond that there are questions of law, people will go to court. There's nothing we can do about that. They will.

Ms Poole: Although it's not necessarily my tendency to run to the defence of the member for Dufferin-Peel on a lot of occasions, in this case I think the minister has been unnecessarily harsh when she criticized the member for not knowing that Dr Ray is indeed a female. I suspect that other than the minister and I, there are probably not very many members in this House, even if all 130 of us were here at this time, who would know that Dr Ray is a female. Most of the correspondence from Dr Ray is in writing, and most of the time when we deal with the hearings board it is not with the chair of the hearings board; it is indeed with the members. So I don't think it necessarily implies any degree of incompetence because a member would not know that Dr Ray is a she.

To go on with a few of the things the minister said, she said the appeals process was generating a lot of delay and that it was quite distressing to see how much delay was caused in the backlog at the appeals. But if the minister chose to take a close look at it she would find that indeed the majority of the backlog is not created by the appeals level; it is created at the rent review level. If the minister would go back in history a little bit, she would know why that happened.

1630

When the Liberal government introduced amendments to rent regulation a number of years ago, they brought virtually every rental unit in the province into the rent review process -- under rent control, as we appear to be calling it now. They brought in all the buildings that were built post-1975, they brought in all the units that had greater than $750-a-month rent, and it was enormous flood of applications coming into a system from these changes that did create a backlog which became a nightmare. That was what created that initial backlog, and obviously things could not get appealed.

When she's talking about two-year, three-year and four-year delays, it was not because of the appeals board. I have worked extensively with rent review and with the appeals board and have attended many hearings with tenants, and I can tell you that those tenants felt that the appeals board was a very worthy process and they were glad it was there.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It was their first hearing. That was their only hearing.

Ms Poole: Madam Minister is saying by way of interjection that this is their only hearing, but I can tell the minister that when tenants go to a hearing and when they feel that the rent officer has not taken into consideration all the facts or that he has erred in his decision, when you ask those tenants at that stage whether they're glad there's no right of appeal, I think you're going to get a very different story.

The minister was also critical of the survey because we asked, "Do you want adequate appeal in the system?" She said: "This is very simplistic. Of course they're going to say they want it." Well, Madam Minister, that's what it comes down to: People want the right of appeal.

If you talk about simplistic, I know this minister was not minister at the time, but in February of last year when her predecessor, the member for Windsor-Riverside, sent a survey to all the tenants in the province asking them their opinions of rent review and rent control with very little backup information attached to it, that was what I call simplistic, giving a minimum of information and then asking questions which would lead to the conclusion the minister wanted to hear. That was not only simplistic, that survey was absolutely misleading in the way it was set up, and at quite a considerable cost to the taxpayers, I may say.

The minister was -- I think the word she used was "scandalous." She thought it was scandalous, unwise and unpardonable that the opposition members would imply that a minister or a minister's office, the ministry, would interfere in a rent decision. What we were talking about, Madam Minister, is a matter of interpretation and a matter of direction. What does the minister think is going to happen when the first precedents under this new rent legislation are made? Do you think this rent officer, in splendid isolation, is going to make a decision that may well determine what happens down the line with other cases; on his own, without any direction, without any interpretation from the minister's office or the ministry? Highly unlikely.

Let's face it: If a rent officer knows he is going against the grain of the current political powers that be by making a certain decision, what kind of influence is that going to have on that decision? Yet that's when the independent, arm's-length right of appeal is denied. That's what this basically comes down to.

I'd just like to make two further points on the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel. The first is to correct an inaccuracy in his comments. He said the Liberal caucus voted in favour of Bill 4. I would remind members of this House that the Liberal caucus voted against Bill 4 on third and final reading because the amendments we proposed to the government to make it a fairer bill were denied.

Mr Tilson: You voted for Bill 121 on second reading.

Ms Poole: Now Mr Tilson brings up Bill 121, and that was the second point I wished to raise as a matter of clarification. On second reading, you vote on whether it is the principle you can support. This is a bill of rent review, not rent control, as the government promised. This was not tied to the government's promise it made in the 1990 election and which we felt was unworkable, unenforceable and would be devastating to our aging housing stock.

We supported their move to going to a rent review system that would actually allow for rent increases so that our aging housing stock could be maintained. That principle we supported then and we support now, but at the time, we also made it very clear that there were amendments the Liberal caucus was seeking to this legislation. Among them is the appeals board. Many of the major amendments the Liberal caucus made in the general government committee were not accepted by the government, and now the Liberal caucus will make a decision whether the government has amended this legislation sufficiently to vote for or against it on third reading.

The Conservatives have a kind of unusual theory about all this. They think that because it's proposed by the NDP government you must vote against it always. They say there's no room to be open-minded and to see whether the government would accept amendments. To be fair, which I try to be at least some of the time, the government did accept a number of the Liberal amendments -- about a dozen of them, I think. The majority of them were relatively minor amendments but I think they still made this legislation more palatable for tenants.

Two of the amendments I consider to be of major import: one, the right to an automatic hearing; and two, that a cost-no-longer-borne provision was instituted. I congratulate the government on going to both those concepts, but that does not mean that whatever decision we made on second reading is final. Third reading begins next week and you'll all just have to wait with bated breath to find out what our caucus will do. It'll be a surprise to all of you.

Mrs Marland: It's so exciting and so interesting to sit here this afternoon and hear everybody being such an authority on what the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is on this bill. I must say, if I didn't have something better to do with my time, I might enjoy sitting here having the Housing minister and the critic for the Liberal Party tell me what we vote on.

I will tell you, Mr Chair, that the Progressive Conservative Party does vote on principle. We don't play games, not like the Liberal opposition party, which voted in favour of this bill we are discussing today and will most likely vote in favour of it on third reading. I'm not a gambling person, but if I were, I certainly would love to be around --

The Chair: Order, please. I think you're very much aware that you're not debating the amendment at all. You have to debate the amendment.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think it is unwise in this House to impute motivation. It is certainly most unwise for the third party critic to guess and gamble on how the Liberal caucus is going to vote. I suggest you wait to find out.

The Chair: Proceed, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, you didn't call the critic for the Liberal Party to order when she talked about who was voting on what in terms of speaking to the amendment. When I rise to respond to the same comments she made, you're calling me to order.

Let me say simply that when the Minister of Housing said a few moments ago that of course there's going to be a right of appeal for the public in terms of this dreadful Bill 121 without an appeal board, that there's always the Ombudsman, it's almost as ludicrous for her to suggest that as to say there's also the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is now bogged down three and four years with appeals.

The Chair: On a point of order, minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Is it a point of order to point out that she is saying I said something which I did not?

The Chair: That's not a point of order. I think you will have the occasion to correct the statement she has made when you have the floor.

Mrs Marland: The Progressive Conservative caucus voted against this bill at second reading. We are going to vote in favour of this amendment that is on the floor, but we will again vote against this bill on third reading. We are consistent; we do not have unusual theories in our voting and we do not have unusual patterns in our voting. We know what we're doing. We do not switch back and forth for this amendment or that amendment.

The amendment on the floor today simply takes away from the people of this province, whether they are tenants or whether they are property owners, the right to appeal the decision of one individual. This individual, we have heard so many times, is called the rent officer. We have also been told by the minister that they are going to hire 110 rent officers. We've also been told that some of the new rent officers they're going to hire may presently be working in the rent review system that exists under Bill 4. I suppose that with an almost two-year backlog now in some rent appeals, it's going to be very interesting when they take some of the staff who are now presently in one job and hire them to do this job. Who will do the job they're leaving?

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think it's incumbent on the government to have a quorum. It's getting very frustrating. It's a simple job: 20 people. I wish we could get a quorum in this place.

The Chair: I'll check with the table if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Mr Chair.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1643

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present.

Mrs Marland: In speaking to the amendment to subsection 1(1), I would like to continue to explain why we support this amendment and why there is a necessity for an appeals board or some form of appeal mechanism to this regressive Bill 121. I guess I'd feel a little more confident about a number of things if we hadn't had so many negative and also nebulous answers from the minister during the process of the committee hearings of the general government committee when we were going through this bill section by section. On a number of occasions, when we asked questions about who these rent officers would be, where they would come from, how much they would be paid, what kind of training they would need and so forth, we couldn't get any answers.

After my persistence and that of the member for Dufferin-Peel, we finally got a commitment from the minister. Because we were insistent on who these people were going to be, they agreed to have their human resources people attend the committee and explain what plans they had for the training and the prerequisite qualifications for these individuals.

Bear in mind that these individuals are really similar to wizards, as I started to call them. They have to be so brilliant, they have to be such specialists and so knowledgeable that they are able to deal with any kind of appeal of rent that might come to their office.

It is also said in response to our questions that if they don't have the knowledge, if they're not experts in engineering so they can decide whether there's a concern about the safety of a balcony, the structural safety of a load-bearing wall, perhaps the structural safety of a roof in an underground garage in an apartment building -- if they don't have that knowledge what can they do? Of course they can call in the expert witnesses. This whole process gets more and more interesting. Who pays for the expert witnesses? Who is going to bear the cost of this expertise that has to be called in because the wizards don't have enough knowledge to do their job?

The wizards in this bill, without this amendment, have all the power in the world to say to my tenants, "No, you can't object to your increase" or "You can't qualify for a reduction because in my opinion there's no problem with your stove; there's no problem with the wind blowing through your window" or whatever the issue is. The decision rests solely on this wizard called the rent officer.

If we had had more confidence in the answers to many of the questions we asked during the committee hearings, I suppose we wouldn't have spent as much time as we did on the powerful position of this person called "rent officer" without knowing what all the training and qualifications were. Even when we had the human resources people at the committee, some of the training and prerequisite qualifications were not yet established because, to use the minister's own words: "We don't even know what they're going to be doing yet because we haven't got this bill through. How do we know what their job is going to be until the bill is passed?"

Isn't this marvellous? We're going to wait until this bill is through and then we're going to decide who the rent officer is going to be, the person who is going to administer this bill from which there is no appeal, because we're absolutely sure the government isn't going to support the amendment that's on the floor. We have a Minister of Housing who said on November 7 in answer to a question by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, "Some of the matters that will be associated with the act I personally need to give more thought to."

The Chair: Order. Please speak to the amendment.

Mrs Marland: I am speaking to the amendment, because the amendment standing in the name of the Liberal caucus says:

"I move 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."

That is talking about the necessity, in the opinion of the mover of this motion, for an appeal process. I am arguing in favour of this amendment. When the minister says -- and I would humbly and respectfully suggest that this amendment is a matter to do with the act -- "Some of the matters that will be associated with the act I personally need to give more thought to" -- this is the minister. I continue the quote, "I would not like to see us stop this work while I do more background study on some of the items which will come under administrative or regulatory provisions." So we are asked again, in the process we're in now, in committee of the whole and in particular with this amendment, to vote in favour of or against the amendments that come up this week in committee of the whole while the minister is saying she's still giving thought to this legislation.

1650

We know quite well that the minister is still giving thought to regulations. We know quite well that, when she says, "Some of the matters that will be associated with the act I personally need to give more thought to," she is not giving any thought to this amendment, because we know this socialist Bob Rae government does not want the public of Ontario to have the opportunity for its rights to be protected by an appeal process. This government has demonstrated already, as it will demonstrate again when it votes against this amendment, it will reconfirm again, as it did with Bill 143, that it totally disregards the rights of appeal for the people of this province on any subject. And when we're talking about Bill 121 and the need for an appeal process, how can we possibly have any faith in a minister who brings to this House a bill she is still giving thought to?

The irony is that there was no hurry for this bill. When this government brought in Bill 4, the idea behind that bill was that it could be an interim bill for a period of perhaps up to two years. Although I personally didn't sit in on the hearings on Bill 4 -- it was not my committee responsibility at that time -- I certainly was aware of the concern of the public in this province on that bill. But it isn't as though the ideology of this socialist government isn't currently being represented without this amendment today. They're protected. They've got this terrible Bill 4 in place today.

So why would the minister bring in Bill 121 while she's still thinking about it? Why wouldn't she have taken the time to think about it and make sure that the bill was as complete as it could possibly be and address all their concerns so when they came to committee they could answer our questions? They could explain why they don't have an appeals board process any longer. They could explain to the people of this province why they think one person can decide their future on an issue as important and maybe as representative of millions of dollars of expense as the rent officer is given the responsibility for.

At the same time they're denying an appeals process, they cannot assure us that the rent officer has the ability to do the job.

If we were to accept that without this amendment the rent officer "wizard" was so capable that he could do the job, let's look at the next step, because the next step is that in Ontario we have 1,318,000 rental units. Do you know, Mr Chair, that without this amendment, this minister thinks 110 rent officers can supervise the implementation and the enactment of this bill as it affects 1,318,000 rental units? I would suggest they surely do have to be some kind of a wizard to be able to do that kind of job.

The point is that without this amendment we fall back on the wizard only, and in so doing this minister is saying to those people who have to live in rental accommodation in Ontario: "I don't really care about you, because, in this wonderful Bill 121 -- I've got this wonderful bill here -- I'm going to empower you as a tenant to apply for a rent reduction. Not only am I empowering you not to pay any rent increases; I'm going to empower you to apply for a rent reduction."

What she doesn't tell the poor tenants of this province is that she's only going to hire 110 wizards to interpret whether or not they're eligible for a rent reduction. What she doesn't tell the tenants of this province -- except those who are already in a rent review process and know how long it takes; I have tenants in my riding who have been three years in the process of trying to appeal a rent increase -- is that with this bill, where they would have no appeal process, they're going to have to wait for a hearing of one of those 110 rent officers.

If the minister wants to stand in the House today and tell us they're now going to hire 2,000 rent officers and maybe tell us a little bit more about what kind of prerequisite qualifications they're going to have and if they're going to be able to save money on behalf of the tenants and the property owners in this province from having to hire outside expertise when the rent officer sits and looks at the application for a rent increase or a rent decrease, then maybe she can correct what it is I've said.

What we're simply saying is that we can't see how this bill is going to work. From the very beginning we have argued that it is not in the interests of property owners and it is certainly not in the interests of nor is it fair to tenants of this province to mislead them with a piece of legislation that says, "You know, you can even get a rent decrease." Can you imagine how excited the tenants in this province would be to think they might be able to get their rent decreased? But when they go to the rent officer and the rent officer says, "Well, no, I don't think you should have a rent decrease," they say to that rent officer: "Is there somebody else I can ask? Is there somebody else to whom I can appeal your decision, Mr Rent Officer, Mr Wizard?"

Mr Tilson: No way.

Mrs Marland: The answer is, "No way," as the member for Dufferin-Peel says. The answer is: "I'm sorry, little tenant; it's just a game we're playing with you. We're trying to prove that as a socialist government in Ontario" -- one of only three socialist governments left in the whole world now -- "we care about you. We care about the tenants in this province."

Even though the member for Yorkview went to a lot of lengths to tell us, through his marmalade version, stories of The Three Little Pigs and Robin Hood, we know whether or not this government cares about people who have to rent accommodation for their shelter in this province. Actually, if we were purely political and purely crass politicians, we probably shouldn't be arguing in favour of this amendment.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am regretful that I can point out right now that there is no quorum in the House.

The Chair: I'll ask the table if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Mr Chair.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1701

The Chair: A quorum is now present.

Mrs Marland: What I was saying is that when we look at whether or not we're going through a political game here, I guess if we were not trying to be as conscientious as we possibly could be for the people of this province, we really would just sit back and let this bill go through and let this Bob Rae socialist government hang itself on this piece of legislation, along with a few pieces that it has passed and we certainly hear it is going to be passing. But that's not the process that we're about. Certainly in the Progressive Conservative Party we're not about being crass politicians who wouldn't at least try to fight for the rights of the people in this province, and without this amendment, the people in this province do not have rights.

The irony is that if I get a speeding ticket on my way home on the Queen Elizabeth Way tonight and I decide to fight it and I go to court and the judge hearing my case agrees with the police officer that I was speeding and levies a fine because of my violation of the Highway Traffic Act, I have a right to appeal. If something as simple and, in the whole spirit of things, as unimportant compared to the rights of all the tenants in this province and the rights of all the property owners in this province -- it is so wrong that all of those people, through this bill, will lose that right of appeal.

The fact is that this rent officer wizard is going to be in a position of saying whether or not an expenditure of a property owner is a capital expenditure eligible for certain rates of increase. This means that as a tenant I may appreciate having my building upgraded, repaired or improved in some way, and if I decide that's what I would like and I think there might be a fair cost to that and I would accept it as a fair increase in my rent, under this legislation, if the rent officer decides that expenditure is ineligible under the category for which the landlord is applying for an increase, then as a tenant I have no right of appeal and neither does the property owner.

It's simply a black-and-white case with this amendment of whether or not you believe in the process of justice. It is that simple. If you think one individual has the right to decide major financial expenditures on behalf of property owners or major expenses on the part of tenants who may be faced with major rent increases, if you think one individual should have the right to make that decision without any right of appeal, then I suggest that Bill 121, without this amendment, is simply putting this province back in the horse-and-buggy days.

We have come a long way in our history and in the years since Confederation, and now with this socialist government we are saying to the people of Ontario, "We don't care about normal rights of appeal as through a justice process." I'm simply saying that it is an absolute must that this amendment be supported. I know quite well that the government, which does not want the rights of people in Ontario to be respected, will not support this amendment.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Mr Tilson: When you peruse the bill, the words "rent officer" are used extensively throughout many of the sections. The minister has said that this committee doesn't need to support this amendment, because we don't need a rent review appeals board. We don't need it, because what is being served by the rent officer is sufficient.

The rent officer is doing an astounding number of things -- you could pick out almost any section throughout the bill -- investigating as to whether there has been some negligence or improper maintenance or inadequate maintenance. Who knows whether she or he, the rent officer, even knows whether there has been inadequate maintenance or whether he or she even knows what those words mean. But they have a lot of absolute powers and they have a lot of rights, and to say that there's no need for a rent review appeals board I find a rather amazing statement.

The minister has said she doesn't appoint these rent review officers. Well, I'm sure she doesn't personally, but the ministry does. I don't know who else appoints them, and that's obvious. I'm going to ask a series of questions of the minister and I hope she will respond. Of course, she doesn't personally appoint them. She won't even know who a lot of them are -- 110 -- but her ministry does; they're civil servants. Again, she has given the impression that these people are going to be well trained and well qualified, and we will ask that question throughout the hearings: How are these people going to be trained? What are their qualifications? Who are these people going to be? I think now is the time that those questions be answered adequately.

The minister has said she's had time to consider matters. She will need more time to study them, and she says, nodding, as an introduction, that she has had time. I'm going to ask six questions of the minister with respect to the people who will be serving this bill rather than the rent review appeals officer. They will be doing the chores of not only those early investigating purposes but the appeal process. They will be in fact the judge and jury; they will be the people who will be laying the charges.

The first question is, what are the qualifications to be a rent review officer?

The second question is, what is the training process to be a rent review officer, who will be conducting many of the duties that are now performed by the rent review appeals board?

I'd like to know what the range of remuneration will be for these people. We need to know how much this is going to cost, because you're certainly suggesting that there's going to be some substantial cost. You're doing away with a whole board, a whole judicial process, so what are you going to pay these people? If they're going to be adequately trained, I hope you're going to adequately pay them. I'd like to know now in this House what the range of remuneration is going to be.

Who appoints them? The minister has said that she doesn't appoint them. Well, who is going to appoint them?

How can she assure this committee that the rent review officers will not be biased? Every once in while you read in the paper where judges are biased, where people, either actual judges or people in quasi-judicial positions, are biased --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The government is having difficulty reaching number 20. We don't have a quorum again.

The Chair: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

1713

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

Mr Tilson: I was just asking the fifth question, and that has to do with whether the minister can assure us that these rent officers will not be biased, because every once in a while people are biased. If you had a proper appeal process where decisions were being made on matters of fact -- all other proceedings under all other pieces of legislation that I know of have an appeal process. Maybe the minister can tell me of some other processes where there is no appeal process. But when there are decisions of this magnitude where biased decisions are capable of being made -- and I'm not saying they're going to made left and right, but the fact is they can be made -- will she assure us that biased decisions will not be made?

Finally, the suggestion has been made -- it's been left with this committee and certainly the committee that originally heard it that there would only be 110 rent officers. The government has made allegations, particularly to the Liberal caucus, that its system was terrible. I happen to agree with them on that, but for other reasons. They've said that the system is terrible because it's been a quagmire, it's bogged down, it's come to a dead stop. How in the world are 110 rent officers going to solve the problem, the system the Liberal government created and that they say wasn't able to work? How are 110 people going to do that? If that information is wrong, would she clarify that and tell us how many rent officers are going to be used in the system?

Those are six questions I hope the minister will respond to because I think they're most important questions before this committee can make any recommendations to the House.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, very briefly, though I think you'll agree with me that this is really distending debate, Mr Tilson has asked for information which he received in committee, and I refer him to committee for details of training, selection, pay and so on of the rent officers. They will, as stated in the legislation, section 126, be appointed by the director of rent control. He will know that the hearings under this legislation will be held under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and if there is bias, there's a possibility of judicial review.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Mr Stockwell: I think at the end of these debates that it's always important to discuss exactly what took place, and in dealing with this amendment, what took place in those days of August and September 1990. I'd like to ask the minister, because this amendment is very different, how far this government has drifted from the original promise that was made to the people of this province in August and September 1990. I speak of course of the Agenda for People. I would ask the minister, seeing as this amendment is before us today, the entire bill in fact, how it is that you've drifted so far from the Agenda for People, page 6, where you said very categorically:

"New Democrats would bring in rent control. That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs. It's simple, it's fair and it avoids the bureaucracy which has frustrated both tenants and small landlords."

The Chair: I'm afraid this is not a question that has to do with the amendment.

Mr Stockwell: Well, in a way it does.

The Chair: Perhaps the minister would like to reply.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I was just going to suggest to you that in fact this has very little to do with the amendment in front of us.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I would say this is very pertinent, because in the Agenda for People it says very clearly, "It's simple, it's fair and it avoids the bureaucracy which has frustrated both tenants and small landlords." I've not heard the defence that this piece of legislation is simple, fair and supports both landlords and tenants. Were you making this up? Were you just not very bright on the campaign trail? I'd just like an answer. What has changed so distinctly from August 1990 to today?

The Chair: I'm afraid this question is totally out of order. Are there any other comments or questions?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I would ask the Minister of Housing if we can today have an absolute, ironclad assurance that these rent officers, the rent polizei, are not going to be populated with the children of NDP MPPs, such as we are now seeing with the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Chair: I'm afraid that again this is a question not at all relevant to the amendment. Are there any further questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Yorkview, order, please. I will now pose the question.

Ms Poole has moved 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."

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair.

The Chair: You cannot raise a point of order when a question is being raised by the table.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the "nays" have it.

Is there unanimous consent that the vote be stacked until the end or would you prefer to call in the members? Deferred until the completion of consideration of the bill.

Vote deferred.

The Chair: Ms Poole moves that the definition of "non-profit cooperative housing corporation" in subsection 1(1) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by striking out "charter or bylaws" in the eighth and ninth lines and substituting "charter, bylaws or articles," and by striking out clause (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) On dissolution, its property after payment of its debts and liabilities shall be transferred to or distributed among one or more non-profit housing cooperatives or charitable organizations."

Minister, do you have any comments?

1720

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes. We put forward the amendment in order to bring Bill 121 more in line with changes, which will be proposed through Bill 166, to the Co-operative Corporations Act. It will ensure that this legislation is consistent with that act as it will be amended.

Ms Poole: The Liberal Party will support this particular amendment since it is simply to ensure that all pieces of legislation are using the same definitions and the same criteria. I think it's very important that we have this type of consistency between and among different pieces of legislation.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments to the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: We will now deal with Ms Poole's amendment.

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

"'Standards board' means the Residential Rental Standards Board."

Ms Poole: The Liberal caucus believes very firmly that the Residential Rental Standards Board, which existed under Bill 51, should not only be reinstated but in fact should be strengthened. I don't think there's any doubt that the concept of a standards board to ensure compliance with maintenance was an excellent concept. What it did was take equal representation from tenants and landlords from the board, and they would look at work orders and they would monitor compliance and they would reach decisions as to whether this should be taken a final step and a rent penalty should be imposed against the landlord because the maintenance had not been kept up to the necessary standards.

But there was one problem with the rental standards board as it existed under Bill 51, that is, that it did not have the jurisdiction to make the final determination, that after it had done its initial investigation and determined the findings in the matter, then the case would be sent to rent review for rent review to take a look at. Unfortunately this is where the delay occurred: It got caught up in the rent review backlog, and therefore the orders were not processed in a very timely manner.

What the government has said is: "Yes, this was a problem. Therefore, we will disband the standards board and we will then put the whole thing, all of maintenance, compliance and monitoring, into rent review." It would seem to me that this is like putting the cat among the pigeons. You've said that rent review caused the initial problem because of the backlog and the length of time it took to go through it, so you then disband the standards board and give the entire thing to rent review? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think you will find that tenants and landlords agreed on this as well.

Amazing, isn't it, that two of the things we've talked about so far today tenants and landlords were in substantial agreement about? Many tenant groups have also called for the reinstatement of the standards board, not necessarily in the identical way it was under Bill 51, but indeed to even strengthen the jurisdiction, mandate and powers of the Residential Rental Standards Board and to make it even more effective than it was and as effective as it could be.

In the standards board right now we have a number of people who have gathered an extensive body of knowledge about the maintenance field, about compliance, about how work orders work and about how municipalities cooperate with the province. Once this board is disbanded, that body of knowledge will be lost. Everything will become mired in the rent review system and no more will we be able to rely on a body such as the standards board to give impartial decisions, decisions that have been approved by tenant and landlord representatives.

I don't want to belabour this particular amendment, although I think it is a very important one. We did have a full debate at committee about it, but I do hope the government will reconsider its decision to disband this very worthy and very effective board and that it will put its compliance, its maintenance review decisions and its rent penalty decisions, because of inadequate maintenance, back where they should be, with an independent board that will not get mired in any backlogs at rent review, but instead will give these types of issues the full and important attention they deserve.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: We will not be supporting the amendment put forward by Ms Poole. We have, as she pointed out, incorporated elements related to the maintenance and the upkeep of apartments within the bill itself, without necessitating the operation of a separate board such as the Residential Rental Standards Board.

What we have said is that landlords will not be eligible for rent increases if there are outstanding work orders. We have provided within the bill a fairly simple mechanism for outstanding work orders to be given by municipalities to the rent offices so that any application for an increase in rent will be stopped by the existence of an outstanding rent order. We have also provided that where a tenant makes an application and that application is found to be accurate, that there is inadequate maintenance, the tenant makes the application as an application for a rent decrease. So we've incorporated within the body of the legislation and directly through the rent offices dealings with maintenance.

Ms Poole: There was one item I omitted to discuss when we were talking about our amendment to reinstate the standards board and that's the impact on northern communities and some of the more isolated communities across Ontario where municipalities do not necessarily have strong maintenance bylaws and property standards.

When we were in Sudbury, we were privileged to hear in the committee hearings a presentation by I believe it was the Muskoka Legal Clinic, and it was its very strong recommendation that the standards board be reinstated. They said the standards board was particularly beneficial in communities like theirs, where there was no history of property standards that had be brought in by municipalities and where they relied on the standards board to set the tone. In fact, they were quite convinced the rent review system could not do as fine a job as the standards board.

1730

Not all municipalities are as progressive as those in my own community and in the city of Toronto, where we have a very strong system of property standards and municipal bylaws to deal with the issues of maintenance. Not all communities are that fortunate. So I think it is particularly important to have a standards board, which will deal with those other jurisdictions, that will give them guidance and direction and that will provide assistance to those communities.

The second item I'd like to address is the fact that by putting the property standard compliance into the rent review system, instead of retaining the standards board the government has chosen the bureaucratic way. Instead of going to a system where it encourages landlords and tenants to work together, they've gone the opposite route to a system which is going to drive them apart.

I think that was one of the things I liked best about the standards board: You had tenant representatives and landlord representatives sitting together in the same room, coming to consensus on issues and making sure they were fair and impartial and that they dealt with the problem.

I find it quite ironic that instead of strengthening that board and strengthening that concept we have gone the opposite route. I find it personally quite distressing that we would seek to drive more wedges between tenants and landlords rather than trying to solve the problem. I guess it appears inevitable that the ministry has not reconsidered its position on this particular amendment. I think in later years they will come to regret the loss of the standards board.

Hon Ms Gigantes: In response to one of the issues raised by Ms Poole, the situation of tenants and landlords in municipalities where there is not a high level of property standards enforcement, the provincial standard will be applicable and the rent control office for the area can call upon provincial assistance in the form of property standards officers who will be retained on a part-time basis to make sure that property standards are maintained.

Ms Poole: I thank the minister for bringing that to the House's attention, but of course I was aware that the province sets the standards where municipalities choose not to, and I can tell you that the Muskoka Legal Clinic was equally aware that the province had jurisdiction and a mandate to step in, in its particular community, where the municipality had not set those compliance standards.

That is not the issue. What the Muskoka Legal Clinic said was that the standards board did a job far superior to provincial inspectors or anybody else who would be brought in through a rent review system and that it felt the standards board was extremely effective.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's certainly not my opinion. I should point out to Ms Poole that what the Muskoka Legal Clinic was dealing with was experience under the Liberal government.

Ms Poole: I hadn't intended to belabour this issue, but obviously the Muskoka Legal Clinic's experience with the standards board under the Liberal government was very positive, because it was calling for its reinstatement.

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:

"'Standards board' means the Residential Rental Standards Board."

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

The Chair: We have an amendment brought by Ms Poole.

Ms Poole: I had tabled with the House an amendment where I moved that clause 3(1)(e) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by adding at the end "as prescribed."

Since that time I have talked with the policy director and she is quite convinced that paragraph 135(1)47 of the bill does give the ministry the power right now to prescribe definitions to the legislation and to further elaborate on it. So I will withdraw this clause at this time, since it appears it is dealt with elsewhere in the bill.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 7:

The Chair: Ms Gigantes moves that subsection 7(3) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Idem

"(3) If, at any time before the notice is given, an order has been made under this act increasing the maximum rent for a rental unit by more than the guideline, the notice shall include information setting out the total cost for the residential complex for each of municipal taxes, heat, hydro and water for two consecutive years, as prescribed.

"Exception

"(3.1) Subsection (3) does not apply if the date of increase set out in the notice is before the day that is 12 months after the first effective date of the first order under this act that increases the maximum rent for a rental unit in the residential complex by more than the guideline."

Minister, do you have any comments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, Mr Chair. You will be glad to know that, given amendments of this nature, when the legislation is passed we will be preparing very fine and reader-friendly materials which can be used by landlords and tenants in Ontario. This amendment requires cost information for two consecutive years, as prescribed, and provides a bit more flexibility than the existing provision in section 7, which says that the cost information has to be given for two calendar years preceding the rent increase date.

Subsection 7(3.1) clarifies that a landlord doesn't have to provide cost information in notices of rent increase effective within the 12-month period for which the order has determined the maximum rent.

The cost information would relate to time periods already dealt with in the order and so it couldn't be used by the tenant to bring a rent reduction application based on a decrease in extraordinary operating costs. This could cause confusion, as you can easily see, Mr Chair. However, this exception only applies to the first order made under the bill. After that the landlord will always have to provide cost information with notices of rent increase.

1740

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to Ms Gigantes's amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 12:

The Chair: Ms Poole moves that paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 12(1) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"3. The part of the guideline allocated to eligible capital expenditures is equal to 1%.

"4. The part of the guideline allocated to additional operating and capital costs not otherwise covered by the guideline is equal to 1%.

"5. The guideline is the sum of the amounts determined under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4."

Are there any comments, amendments or questions?

Ms Poole: Yes. As the act exists in its present form, paragraph 12(1)3 states, "The part of the guideline allocated to capital expenditures is equal to 2%." It does not define in that paragraph that it is eligible capital expenditures, it just says "capital expenditures." It's my understanding that it does refer to eligible capital expenditures under section 15.

The minister is shaking her head and saying no at that. Could I just ask for a clarification?

Hon Ms Gigantes: In that section, it doesn't refer to eligible or ineligible or anything; it is just called "capital." It's available for capital. It's the further application of the 2% that is raised in question by this amendment.

Ms Poole: If I could ask for a further clarification, when a landlord has an application in the rent system where the landlord has applied for capital expenditures up to a maximum of 3%, the act right now, to the best of my knowledge, requires that the landlord has to justify that the 2% from the guideline has been spent on eligible capital expenditures. The minister is nodding her head yes, let the record show.

Because that section refers to this 2%, and for that purpose it has to be eligible capital expenditures, that means that when a landlord goes for a rent increase the fact that he has painted the corridors, for instance, or does that kind of capital expenditure doesn't count. The landlord has to do major capital work which is deemed eligible under section 15.

The problem we encounter here is that for a landlord who's going to do major capital expenditures there is absolutely no incentive to make sure some of that minor work gets done. I gave you one example of painting hallway corridors or painting the lobby, that type of thing. There are other operating costs that were covered in the guideline under Bill 51 that are not covered in the guideline formula under this legislation. For instance, if you look at the superintendent costs, some of those have changed from the previous formula.

The purpose of this amendment is to say that capital in the guideline should be divided into two categories. One is for eligible capital expenditures. That's if you did want to repair the roof, put in energy conservation or do something that qualifies under this act for reimbursement. The other section is 1% where the landlord can do some of those minor repairs that aren't covered, such as painting the corridors.

This means it would be far more of an incentive to actually do some of the minor repairs. If when the landlord makes an application for some of the major repairs later on he's told, "The fact that you did all these minor repairs is irrelevant. That doesn't count because when we're deducting that 2% we're going to deduct it if you haven't done 2% worth of major repairs," this would act as a disincentive for the landlord to do those minor repairs and keep the building in good working order.

There are many things that do not fall under the category of eligible capital expenditures that nevertheless tenants want done. They're the things that keep the apartment building looking nice. It's not the fact that the apartment building will fall down structurally if they're not done; it's just that those things make their place a little more of a home, and a well-kept home at that.

So we have felt that by giving the landlord an incentive and saying, "Do these minor repairs and you won't be penalized for it later in a rent application by their saying, 'Well, sorry, we're only going to consider the major repairs,'" this is a much better way to look at it. Then when that landlord goes to rent review or, as the minister would like to call it, rent control with a rent increase application for capital expenditures, the landlord would not be penalized by the 2% deduction but the 1% allocated in the guideline for eligible capital.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That explanation really does credit to the amendment, because it shows how confused one can get once one moves off the principles involved in the bill. In this bill we've set a guideline. We've said that if a landlord is going to get any moneys beyond the guideline, the landlord can only apply for what are called eligible capital expenditures. It names those. They relate to the physical integrity of the residential unit. They relate to compliance with municipal or provincial standards related to health and safety or to protect the environment. This is all under section 15. They relate to the maintenance of plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation or air-conditioning systems. They relate, 15(2)(d), to changes that produce access for persons with disabilities or, 15(2)(e), an investment in energy conservation measures. Those are the only grounds for which a landlord can apply for an above-guideline increase, and that's the way we think it should be.

1750

Further, what we are saying is that when a landlord makes such an application, the landlord should have to justify the 2% that is already in the guideline for maintenance and capital. That guideline reflects operating costs that are real, that reflect real averages out there in apartment buildings and in the operation of apartment buildings. That guideline adds in another 2% and says that is specifically for the ongoing upkeep of the building, the kind of thing Ms Poole was referring to. What the bill says quite clearly, and we intend to stick to it, is that if the landlord goes for an above-guideline increase, the landlord's going to have to first justify the expenditures of that 2% within the guideline and justify them along the same lines as I've just cited in section 15.

In other words, the landlord is not going to be able to come in for an above-guideline increase, however worthy the purpose the landlord associates with the undertaking he or she will do with that above-guideline money, and have spent the 2% in the guideline on something that wasn't necessary. That just doesn't wash.

We are saying that 2% is going to have to be included. It's not going to be changed the way Ms Poole is suggesting so in fact the landlord would only have to justify 1% when there was an above-guideline application. That's the way we think is fair and that's the way we want to see it stay.

Ms Poole: I regret having to correct the minister about her own legislation, but she said that the 2% in the guideline was for maintenance and capital. The 2% is not for maintenance and capital.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Whatever.

Ms Poole: She says "Whatever." I will read what the existing act says: "The part of the guideline allocated to capital expenditures is equal to 2%."

The minister fails to see the tie-in, but there is a tie-in. When a landlord does major capital repairs and goes to rent review for an order increasing the rent, the landlord at that stage must justify that the 2% in the guideline has been spent on eligible capital repairs. So when she talks about minor maintenance and ongoing repairs and ongoing upkeep and painting the hallways, Madam Minister, that is not what that 2% is for when the landlord has to justify it.

I am most familiar with the list of eligible capital repairs, because they have a marked similarity to the amendment the Liberals placed in Bill 4, if we can all remember that far back, almost a year and a half ago. That's what we suggested under Bill 4 and the ministry has incorporated our definitions into this bill, which is very good. I think the list of necessary capital repairs is very good, and the minister is very pleased that I'm agreeing with her.

Where I disagree with the minister is the impact of this 2% in the guideline. She's saying, "Well, it's 2% and landlords can go ahead and spend it on whatever." In fact they can do that, but if they are applying for an above-guideline capital repairs increase, they cannot. They will have to have shown that they spent it on major capital, on the eligible capital repairs in section 15. I say to the minister that is the tie-in.

You may feel, Minister, that this particular section does not prove a disincentive, but I can tell you that it will, because any landlord who is going to put in energy conservation measures, let's say new Thermopane windows that meet all the tests of energy conservation, is going to spend that 2% on major capital and not on the ongoing maintenance, upkeep and day-to-day minor repairs that have to be done.

The minister's getting some assistance. She's getting a note that will tell her what to say and how to say it. But the fact of the matter is that there's a direct tie-in between this section and what later happens with the eligible capital repairs when a landlord goes to rent review.

If you want landlords to do those major repairs, then you're going to have to be very sensitive in this particular section that you are not penalizing them with that deduction. Without this amendment, the Liberal amendment later on -- with all these wonderfully simplified pieces of legislation the actual subsection our amendment now refers to is subsection 20(3), which talks about a reduction of 1% when the landlord takes those eligible capital repairs to rent review.

So there's a definite tie-in. We can't do one without the other. I think what you want to do, Madam Minister, is encourage landlords to keep up with those day-to-day repairs and those small maintenance items: the painting and all that type of thing that must go on in an apartment building in order to keep it in good repair. What I say to you is that as long as you tie that 2% in to a deduction from the landlord when he applies you are not going to provide an incentive to get the minor stuff done, let alone the major stuff.

Hon Ms Gigantes: This is a wonderful train of argument. Let's start out again with what the guideline is. The guideline is composed of an index which reflects both the increases and the weights in costs that are met by landlords across Ontario. It reflects the reality of those costs. It includes superintendents' costs, it includes maintenance costs, it includes painting costs, heating costs, hydro costs. It includes all those costs that go on in apartment buildings. That's in the guideline.

We take that and then we add in 2%. Then when the landlord wants more than the guideline, which is that inflation-weighted element plus the 2% -- there's your guideline -- Ms Poole tells us the landlord should not have to justify having spent the 2% on something serious. I think that is wrong. I don't think that's fair. I think it's fair for the landlord to have to justify the 2% that was in the guideline for precisely major kinds of things.

We don't want landlords coming to us every time they want to do something. That's why we set a reasonable guideline. If we had a system where the guideline was so low and landlords couldn't breathe -- that hasn't been the experience, by the way, with a guideline composed exactly the same way as the one in this bill; the experience has been that 17% of landlords will make an application in a given year. If we wanted a complex system, we'd get that guideline way down there and then every landlord who wanted to wave a paint brush at something would have to come in and ask for an above-guideline increase.

We haven't done that. We've set a reasonable guideline. Within that guideline is 2%, which is a very nice bit of elbow-room for landlords, on top of the inflationary part. We say that if a landlord wants more than that in a given year or for a given piece of work over three years, which we allow, the landlord is going to have to explain that the 2% within the guideline was spent on something necessary. I think that's fair.

The Chair: Minister, it may be appropriate now to move that the committee rise and report.

On motion by Ms Gigantes, the committee of the whole reported progress.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1801.