The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

Mr Murdoch (Grey) moved second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la représentation électorale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Grey moves second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation. The member for Grey.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Mr Speaker, maybe we should start off with my name being Mr Murdoch and not Mr Grey. We might want to get the record straight on that.

The Deputy Speaker: I apologize profusely.

Mr Murdoch: That's fine. It changes from time to time.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): You wanted a name change.

Mr Murdoch: Yes.

I am pleased to be able to rise today and explain to this House why I wish to debate my bill, An Act to amend the Representation Act, which would change the name of my riding from Grey to Grey-Owen Sound.

This legislation is very important to me and to my community. As most members know, I am very proud of my corner of Ontario and I think the name of my riding should accurately reflect its makeup. The name "Grey" implies the county of Grey, which is largely rural and is made of the townships of Artemesia, Bentinck, Collingwood, Derby, Egremont, Euphrasia, Glenelg, Holland, Keppel, Normandy, Osprey, Proton, St Vincent, Sarawak, Sullivan and my home, Sydenham. As well, we are proud to have the rural towns of Durham, Hanover, Meaford and Thornbury and the villages of Chatsworth, Dundalk, Flesherton, Markdale, Neustadt and Shallow Lake.

But, as any member who has visited Grey will know, the county is mostly wide-open spaces. The towns and villages I have mentioned are bustling and full of life but they are not large. They reflect all the warmth and friendliness and honest, straightforward values and thinking for which rural Ontario is prized. But I have an urban component to my riding too, which is not reflected in the name. I would like to see that corrected through this bill.

The city of Owen Sound, which is named for the body of water it sits on, has more than 20,000 residents. It is a true city which embodies everything that is good in urban life. We have a small manufacturing base. We have the Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre, which serves the counties of Grey and Bruce. We have the Tom Thomson Memorial Gallery, which we're proud of. We have the County of Grey Owen Sound Museum. We have the Owen Sound Little Theatre. We also have the Owen Sound Billy Bishop regional airport, which has just been built in the last year. We have the Grey-Bruce Arts Council, the Georgian Bay Folk Society and many Canadian and Ontario championship sports teams, as well as the World Highland Dance Troupe and School. As you can see, it is a city in itself.

My riding is very diverse. We have the best of both worlds, rural and urban. The rural area relies on agriculture which supports dairy, beef, pork and sheep farmers, as well as a healthy apple industry which produces some of the finest fruit in Ontario. We also have a four-season tourist area that features great skiing, beautiful walking trails, clean water and beaches and good fishing.

One of the loveliest areas in the province is in my riding -- the Niagara Escarpment. I feel very strongly we should preserve its natural beauty for future generations. But we also have an urban centre with all the cultural, entertainment and sporting attractions that are part and parcel of city life and I feel this very important area in my riding should be equally recognized.

My riding wants this change. I have here a resolution passed by the city of Owen Sound and a letter from the county of Grey which supports it. The motion city council adopted reads as follows:

"Whereas the city of Owen Sound is predominantly a regional centre within the county of Grey and houses the county of Grey administrative offices; and

"Whereas the city of Owen Sound feels the name of the city should be added to the name of the provincial riding;

"Now therefore be it hereby resolved that the council of the corporation of the city of Owen Sound respectfully requests Bill Murdoch, MPP, Grey riding, to introduce a private member's bill to have the name of the Grey riding changed to 'Grey-Owen Sound' riding."

The name "Grey-Owen Sound" is already used by many organizations in the riding. Looking through my local phone book, one can find the name several times. We have the Grey-Owen Sound Museum, Grey-Owen Sound Social and Family Services, the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit and the Grey-Owen Sound Centre Nursery, to name a few. So people are already familiar with this name and find it a more accurate way to identify themselves.

Members will know there is a precedent for changing the name of a riding at a time other than during redistribution. Most recently, my colleague Noble Villeneuve, the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville, had similar legislation passed in the last session. This change was important to him and his constituents. As was pointed out at that time in this House, every member recognizes the significance of his or her own electoral district and that the name should reflect the geographical area of the riding he or she represents. I want no more for Grey and Owen Sound. I eagerly await the comments of my colleagues from the other two parties and I hope they will be able to support me in this endeavour.

As I pointed out, the county of Grey and the city of Owen Sound are two different municipalities. The city of Owen Sound is a separate city and is not joined with Grey other than in the services they provide for each other. This has been going on for many years. Both Grey and Owen Sound have shared different facilities. The people from Owen Sound use the facilities out in the country and the people in the country go into Owen Sound and use its facilities, yet they remain two different municipalities. This is one of the main reasons I feel we should recognize the city of Owen Sound in the riding change. I've talked to many people in my riding, those in Hanover and Meaford, who have a small urban centre but are still part of Grey county, and they find no fault with this. They think this would be a good idea.

When people want to come to our area, be it for tourism or to move an industry there, we'd like them to realize that when you say you're from Grey-Owen Sound, you have an urban setting along with a rural setting and you can get the best of both worlds.

Also, as I pointed out, we are very fortunate to have a four-season tourist area. Again, as I said, we have the best skiing in Ontario and some of the cleanest beaches and water you can find anywhere. The fishing derby we have attracts many tourists to our area. They'll go fishing out in the rural part of my riding, but a lot of them will stay and enjoy the entertainment and things they can find in the city at night and the fine restaurants and places where they can eat.

The people in my riding have asked for this to be changed. I think it's a good idea and I hope the rest of the people in this House will agree with me and, when the time comes, vote for it. I will wrap up at a later date.

1010

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I rise today to give support to the member for Grey in his request to change his riding from Grey to Grey-Owen Sound. The riding of Huron was named because, as many know, it's along the shore of Lake Huron. As the member pointed out, he has two different, distinct areas. He has a large urban centre and a mixture of smaller towns and hamlets. In the riding of Huron we have 16 townships. In fact, one of our townships is named Grey, I think in recognition of the history, and probably they felt proud to name a township that way. But we also have towns, Exeter, Seaforth, Hensall, Goderich, Wingham and Clinton, and many police villages and small hamlets. However, we have no big cities. If I can say so, I think we have the perfect mixture of all worlds.

As the member for Grey pointed out in his remarks, many times we do not have a choice of constituency lines. I think of the riding of Huron, which over my short time in this world has been Huron-Bruce and Huron-Middlesex. Then it reverted back to the riding now of Huron, which is just the straight county, which I, as a long-time resident of Huron county, find very easy to take. I believe we have no need to change our name.

However, we have to recognize that places like Grey and Owen Sound need to be recognized. As the council of Owen Sound has pointed out, it's important for its economic wellbeing and just the pride it needs to have. I respect that.

I also would like to say, if I may say it in a light way, that when we were up there playing hockey I was thinking that the member maybe wanted to change it to the Murdoch riding. But he is a more honourable member and realizes he is only the servant. He will have his name written somewhere else, I'm sure. It won't be in any hockey logs, I can assure you of that.

Anyway, I know the member is proud of his riding. For him to go and promote the idea that he would like it changed to Grey-Owen Sound, he does that with respect. As he pointed out, the councils, towns and villages all have used the name Grey-Owen Sound from time to time, so it seems like only a logical step. For that I firmly believe he is doing the right thing. From what I've met of the honourable member he is one who stands up for his riding, although sometimes we disagree. But then when it comes to our own individual ridings we fight for them, because that's our duty here. The mix comes out in policy, in whatever we do.

I have had the privilege of being in the member's riding a number of times. I mentioned a minute ago that we were up playing hockey this winter. The scenery in his riding is truly spectacular. I can only compare it somewhat to the foothills of the Beaver Valley area, for example. I have a bit of a comparison when I'm in Alberta, for example, at the foothills. You can go from my riding two and a half hours later and go to his and ski. We are very fortunate in our neck of the woods to be able to go skiing, come to Lake Huron's shores, beautiful sandy beaches in the summer and the warm waters of Lake Huron. As a farmer, I've told a lot of people: "We don't need to have a cottage. We're already in heaven."

In short, I think it's a good motion. The Grey and Owen Sound populations respect it. As the member pointed out, it's been in the telephone book under many things. My colleague from the riding of Lambton has mentioned that many times they use Sarnia-Lambton as names to coincide to give recognition. I don't believe they're changing their name, because Sarnia, as you know, has its own riding, so there's no need to change constituency lines in our books here. But lines are naturally drawn, and to have it recognized in this House I think is an honour for that area and an honour that this member is doing this at this time. I fully support it and wish him luck.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I just came back from Owen Sound. Having examined the way of the world in the great city to the north and partly to the south of my riding -- as you know, the riding of Bruce -- do I have to name all the towns and everything in Bruce as the member for Huron named his and the member for Grey named his?

We can go through that, but may I say it's my pleasure to rise today. Although the issue in front of us is quite similar in many ways to that of our colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, a gentlemen to whose bill I also spoke, the change of name is an interesting request because, as I said during the debate with respect to that gentleman's bill, it means there is a movement on from what has taken place in the past.

Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as it was then known under the care of the deceased Osie Villeneuve, was a well-known name in the annals of this particular place. When people spoke about eastern Ontario's agricultural centres it was not uncommon to think of Osie Villeneuve in his role as dean, as he was when I came to this place, of this Legislature. His often brief but incisive contributions to our debates were well known, and you could go to the heading under the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for some interesting words.

The same occurs to me today as we rise to talk about the change of name of this particular riding from Grey to Grey-Owen Sound. For instance, I recall with some very happy recollections the time when the member for Grey-Bruce, the honourable -- honourable? he certainly was honourable -- Eddie Sargent, was the member. He happened to be a Liberal, but he was there representing Grey-Bruce and he represented many of the towns and places the member currently from Grey has enumerated. Mr Sargent also represented parts of the riding of Bruce, particularly the -- I don't know how you'd describe it. I represented sort of a southern triangular portion of Bruce in the days of Huron-Bruce and Eddie represented the rest of the county. He represented Grey county as well except Owen Sound and part of Grey county.

The interesting thing about Mr Sargent was that, while he lived in Owen Sound, it didn't matter to Eddie what the name of his riding was. It didn't matter to the people in the riding of Grey-Bruce what the name of their riding was because they knew they were well taken care of by Eddie Sargent, a man with whom all of us have associated good times, good sense and, I might say, probably the most interesting practical joke ever played on a Speaker in this House. Everybody will have recalled the story of the helicopter, but for those who can't remember it is reported well in Hansard and can be dug out for your edification.

There happens to have been as well a member from Grey riding, Bob McKessock, here in 1981 when I arrived. Mr McKessock had replaced a very powerful and diligent local member for Grey, the honourable Eric Winkler, in 1975. The interesting thing about Mr McKessock and Mr Winkler was that it did not matter much to them what the name of their riding was and it did not matter much to them what the names of their constituents were: They represented them all. They represented them whether they came from Hanover, Durham or any place within the bounds of that riding. The name was not important, but the area was extremely important, and the diligence with which they pursued their mandate of representing the individual constituent, some of whom didn't vote for each of those members just named, was an amazing record for those of us who have followed them.

1020

We haven't forgotten about Ron Lipsett, who was the previous member from the Grey riding. Mr Lipsett defeated the then up-and-coming Bill Murdoch in 1987 and was himself then defeated by the current member for Grey in 1990. The interesting thing about Mr Lipsett was that he was not concerned with the name of the constituency, but he was concerned with the problems of his constituents on a daily basis and worked very hard and diligently in respect of meeting those needs.

The member for Grey, as it is now known, and I'm not sure exactly what the outcome of the debate or vote will be this morning, has taken some examples and some lead from those people who have been there. It has never mattered to a member of this Legislative Assembly what we called ourselves -- heaven knows we get called enough things by other people -- or what the riding names are called. Our true test of ability and of relevance is still the way in which we meet the needs of our constituents.

That's a long preamble, Mr Speaker, to let you know that I am not so concerned as to what we call our constituencies. I know it's important that Owen Sound be recognized. Owen Sound is a great place. I know the mayor, an interesting fellow and, some might say, a kindred spirit. I would say there will be days when we will share some common debate times with him. But I likewise am a person who admires the abilities that are shown by the people of Hanover, the people of Markdale, of Thornbury, of all over the great Grey riding, so for me, if the member for Grey wishes to change the historic name of the riding of Grey to Grey-Owen Sound, that is fine by me.

But I wish to remind us all that here are some of the issues that affect the people of Grey, as they affect the people of Bruce and, I dare say, even the people of Huron, some of whom I represented at one time in this House. Where are our transportation links? Heaven knows Eddie Sargent was pressing, for long days, to have a four-lane highway come up into our part of the country. Anybody who, as I have just done, has tried to go from Toronto to any part of Bruce or some parts of Grey in less than three hours, leaving at 3:30 in the afternoon, will know it is impossible, whether or not you end up having all the cooperation that is required of the police services throughout this province. There is no direct route into our part of the province.

So our need, of people who come from Huron, Bruce, Grey and, I might even say, from Simcoe -- and even to a certain extent of the member for Wellington, because his riding comes right next to ours -- is access to the markets to make it reasonable for our people to supply at a reasonable price the materials which we produce. We need a sense that we have not been forgotten. There are days when we do believe we have been forgotten in our part of the country, because all of the things that determine the services to be provided in our areas are stacked against rural Ontario.

None of the statistics will be able to be meted out that will allow our roads to receive upgrading, because the days when they measure the traffic on our roads are the days other than the busiest times of the year, which are in the spring, when we have all the haulage for our growing and very vital agricultural sector; for our tourism sector -- they don't measure many of those numbers on the weekends.

We don't get the extra that is required to maintain the open yards of the Ministry of Transportation in Tobermory, Elsinore and Walkerton when it comes to having enough work to be done on the roads to clear them in the winter. As you know, the Minister of Transportation just shut down those three Ministry of Transportation yards.

We don't have enough things happening in our area for the federal government -- excuse me, Canada Post -- to think we should have open post offices any more. We don't have enough in our part of southwestern Ontario to allow the railroads to continue to run. It is not just the provincial government that refuses or fails to see all the needs we have. The provincial government, the federal government and organizations that are crown corporations, which are in my view just extensions of both those levels of government, are not providing us with the same level of service.

So members like Mr Lipsett, Mr Sargent and Mr McKessock spent long days representing those types of issues to the people. I might say as well that Eric Winkler, in his day here, a very powerful man and a very compassionate man, a man I know fairly well and whose health, I hope, is improving -- Eric, if you're watching the debate, I hope you're feeling better today -- spent a lot of time trying to elevate the status of southwestern Ontario, the Grey, Bruce and Huron areas -- particularly Grey, I might add -- in the eyes of the provincial authorities so that we could receive some benefits that would allow us to progress along with the rest of the province.

The members I mentioned -- Lipsett, Sargent and McKessock -- spent their time pursuing that. Those needs are still there. Whatever we call the riding, Grey or Grey-Owen Sound, the member will have to know he must pursue -- or she, because of course the great tradition of the Grey riding has been the offering to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario of our first female member. Who can forget Agnes Macphail, another great tradition, a tradition my friends opposite would, I'm sure, have more familiarity with than some of us Liberals and Tories? I can tell you, though, that you probably don't know all that much more about her, because we have a tremendous pride in the ground-breaking traditions that have been established in the great ridings of our part of the country.

What have I heard today, and what is the member going to do, I must ask, about the current situation with development in Grey county? We have heard for a long time about -- in fact, Mr Winkler heard much about it; Mr McKessock benefited from it in some ways -- the Niagara Escarpment Commission. While we speak about changing the name, what, my friends, are we to hear of the representations of the member for Grey-Owen Sound, or Grey, with respect to this important issue?

What about the issues this man must pursue with respect to the Sewell commission? For those of us in rural Ontario, the issue first raised by Mr Sewell, where he would not allow septic systems to be used for disposition of sewage, means a virtual halt to any development, any opportunity for us as a rural part of the country to continue to grow. If you don't grow, and if you don't get transfers from the government at a municipal level, then you are virtually done. I know the member for Grey will be rising to talk about the issues as opposed to just naming the towns, but those are two more issues that are important.

What about the change this new government of ours has brought forward with respect to tree cutting? In Bruce county we've had tree-cutting bylaws all over for a long time that regulate the cutting of trees, but now it is going to be required, not only in Bruce but also in Grey and Huron and every place else, that someone from the Ministry of Natural Resources approve every tree to be cut by those people who have been in the business of husbanding their forest resources.

For instance, the farm I grew up on, on the 2nd Concession of Morris, indeed in the riding of Huron, has had on it for a number of years an extended woodlot which has provided for our family, since we first settled there in the 1850s, the produce to build barns, outbuildings and indeed houses. In fact, as a young boy I was there cutting trees with my father and helping to insert the stringers in the bents which had deteriorated, but we did it by choosing the correct trees and husbanding that forestry resource. Now we're being told that the farm people of this great province cannot do that on their own, that they must have somebody who gives them a checkmark to do it. I regret that this is the case.

What is going to happen with respect to the non-commercial signs along the highways in the great riding of Grey or Grey-Owen Sound? What is this member going to say about it? I said yesterday that I think it is unfortunate the New Democrats are closing down the opportunity of all of our citizens to freely speak about their religious preference by signage of their thoughts about great public policy events.

I close now only by saying that I am pleased to support the member, because he has asked for support to change this name; I have no trouble. But the proof, the real test, of whether or not there is relevance in this place will be the representation of the citizens' needs in this Legislative Assembly.

1030

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to express my support for private member's Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act, which was introduced by my colleague the member for Grey, soon to be the member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Speaker, you are no doubt aware that Owen Sound city council and Grey county council both adopted resolutions, of which we have copies here, requesting that Bill Murdoch, MPP, Grey, introduce a private member's bill aimed at changing the name of the riding of Grey to the riding of Grey-Owen Sound. My colleague introduced a private member's bill on April 14, 1992, and we are debating it at second reading here today.

The proposed name change is not a spur-of-the-moment decision by the member for Grey. In the resolutions, both councils note that Owen Sound is predominantly a regional centre within the county of Grey and the city houses the county of Grey administrative offices.

The constituents of both Owen Sound and Grey county would be proud to have the riding named after the two municipalities. That area of the province of Ontario has a long and glorious history, and I'd to just relate some of that history.

At the northern terminus of the Garafraxa Road on the shores of Owen Sound, a town plot was laid out in 1840 to encourage settlement in that part of the county, originally called Sydenham. I believe the present member for Grey was the reeve of that municipality and also the warden of the country of Grey. The settlement took the name of its adjacent body of water in 1857 when, with 2,000 residents, it was incorporated as the town of Owen Sound. That was in 1857, with a population of 2,000.

Owen Sound gave us two especially well-known Canadians.

Courage and marksmanship made Owen Sound native William Avery Bishop one of the leading fighter pilots of the First World War. Billy Bishop was officially credited with the destruction of 72 enemy aircraft and was awarded several military decorations for his actions.

For his courageous initiative in the fighting at Passchendaele in the First World War, Thomas William Holmes was awarded the Victoria Cross. After the war he returned to his home town of Owen Sound and later worked for the Toronto Harbour Commission.

Yes, Owen Sound has played a major role in the history of Ontario. Following the signing of the Saugeen Treaty, the government rebuilt a former Indian village adjacent to the settlement at Owen Sound for a band of Ojibwa led by Chief Neywash. In 1857 the residents ceded their land and moved to the reserve at Cape Croker.

Running from Weston, on the outskirts of Toronto, to Owen Sound by 1873, the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway Line facilitated commerce between the agricultural and forest resources of Grey and Bruce counties and the Toronto markets. The company was absorbed by the CPR in 1884.

The county of Grey has much of which to be proud.

The distillation of bituminous shale to obtain crude oil was an early attempt to meet the growing demand for oil. William Pollard's shale oil works at Craigleith, which is just outside of Collingwood, the only such enterprise in Ontario, operated for four years until the discovery of more accessible oil at Petrolia and Oil Springs, which rendered the cumbersome shale process obsolete. Those last two places are, I believe, down near Lambton county.

Heroic action by a local rescue party in small fishing boats during a violent storm saved the lives of many of the people on board the Mary Ward after the steamship had grounded on a reef near the current site of Craigleith Provincial Park, which is in Grey county. It's also just north of Collingwood.

The Durham Road, the Garafraxa Road, the Old Mail Road and the Toronto-Sydenham Road were all constructed during the mid-1800s. These roads provided access and served to open up Grey county to early colonization.

Grey county gave Canada a number of famous people. The franchise, improved health care and fairer property rights for women, temperance and better conditions for factory workers were just some of the causes to which the indomitable Nellie McClung, who was born near Chatsworth in 1873, devoted her life.

A natural athlete with exceptional muscle and coordination, Noah Brusso was born near Hanover in Grey county in 1881. He became a professional boxer under the ring name of Tommy Burns. In 1906 he became the first Canadian to win the heavyweight championship of the world.

While I'm talking about famous people in this country who have come from Grey county and area, former Prime Minister of Canada John Diefenbaker is also among those famous people.

We cannot forget the first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament, Agnes Campbell MacPhail, who was born near Hopeville and championed many causes such as prison reform, improved health care and rural cooperative movements during her years in federal and provincial politics.

One of Canada's best-known painters, Tom Thomson, grew up in Leith and worked as a commercial artist before he started to paint in oils. His canvases of the forests of northern Ontario reveal a distinctive style of painting and were a strong influence on the Group of Seven.

A native of Meaford, the Right Honourable Sir Lyman Poore Duff, was one of Canada's most eminent jurists, an expert in constitutional law, particularly as applied to provincial and federal rights. Duff held many appointments during his career, including Chief Justice of Canada.

The moving force behind the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada, Major Charles Stuart, who settled near Thornbury in Grey county in 1851, devoted much of his life to humanitarian causes, strongly influencing the anti-slavery movement in England and the United States.

The people of Owen Sound and Grey have much to be proud of. I have no problem in supporting my colleague's bill. That whole part of Ontario -- the Blue Mountains, Devils Glen, the scenic caves -- when we look at our tourism industry, we have to look at that part of this province with great admiration for the people who visit there and fish the shores of Georgian Bay. Then we have to look at our apple industry. A lot of apples are grown in the Thornbury and Meaford areas. The apple cider we use comes from that area.

Some day, one of the great historical parts of this province will be the Niagara Escarpment. Many countries would love to have an area that has so much heritage and so much to add to our sports and fitness and conservation people who tour that area, so that they could have the opportunity to go and enjoy and hike right across this province through the Niagara Escarpment.

I remember debating in this Legislature when we had the redistribution in the ridings back in about 1985, I believe it was, with regard to Simcoe East, the recommendation from the election commission that it should be named Simcoe North. We had quite a debate in this Legislature to have that name kept as Simcoe East, thereby identifying that part of the county of Simcoe that is on the easterly border of Simcoe county.

The member for Grey brings before us today a bill that both of his municipalities have sent letters endorsing. I think if the government today is listening to the people, and especially the people in the riding of Grey, it will certainly be supporting this resolution and making sure that it happens.

In conclusion, the people of Owen Sound and Grey have much they can be proud of and I have no problem supporting private member's Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act, which would change the name of the riding of Grey to the riding of Grey-Owen Sound.

I want to thank the member for Grey for bringing this matter before the Legislature for our attention and consideration. I would urge everyone here to support this bill, as they did when he brought the bill through to have Tartan Day 6 April.

1040

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is a pleasure for me to rise this morning and speak to the member for Grey, we hope soon to be Owen Sound, on his Bill 9, an act to effect a name change.

Before I go on to that, I'd just like to say how enjoyable I find history. To the member for Simcoe East, friend, colleague, I really enjoyed hearing about some of the things I've seen up in that area brought to my attention, in particular the shale in Craigleith where they discovered oil. That always amazed me. When I first came to Canada and went up there and saw that, I couldn't believe what the sign said. So I am always interested in history and it was a wonderful history lesson to hear about all the wonderful people who have come from that area over the years.

I am very familiar with the area myself. I just think it's some wonderful country there. I speak specifically of Thornbury, where those apples grow, and the beautiful scenic drive through Collingwood that always reminds me of some places in Europe that I am familiar with, as I drive along there particularly in the spring; such a wonderful spot. I am also very familiar with Meaford, but I don't speak about Meaford in such adoring terms because, as the member probably knows, that's a military training area. I spent many a mosquito-bitten summer there doing all kinds of manoeuvres. Mr Speaker, you are probably familiar with that area too.

Nevertheless, I think it's important to recognize the diversity of the member's riding and the reason why he's bringing this name change forward. Owen Sound is another beautiful rural city; it has some wonderful amenities. I have been there many times and had the pleasure, many years ago, to make the acquaintance of the member whom the member for Bruce spoke of so endearingly, Eddie Sargent, who, as we all know, was quite a character in the Owen Sound area even when he wasn't here in the Legislature.

I'm also taking recognition of the fact that the council of Owen Sound has asked the member to effect this name change. I think we would be remiss in this Legislature if we didn't recognize the impact and the concerns of the council of Owen Sound to have that city recognized in the name change of Grey-Owen Sound.

I'd be remiss if I didn't speak of my own riding in this opportunity -- Durham East. I don't know who was responsible for the realignment of Durham East. I've got to my left the member for Durham West --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Centre.

Mr Mills: Durham Centre. See how confused I am. We have the member for Durham West, we have the member for Durham East, we have the member for Durham-York, we have the member who is in Durham, but they call that Oshawa. Talk about confusing.

I represent in Durham East parts of Whitby and parts of Oshawa along with the other places in my riding. I know that annoys me a little bit when I get things that happen at Durham College, which is in my riding although it's in Whitby, and my colleague the member for Durham Centre gets the recognition, and at the same time when things happen in Oshawa, which is also in my riding, the member for Oshawa gets the signal to go to all these events.

I'm thinking maybe there's a beautiful, wonderful name for Durham East whereby we can get all this sorted out once and for all and we know it does encompass Oshawa, Whitby and other fine areas in the riding, such as Scugog, Port Perry, Bowmanville, Newtonville, and of course that quaint hamlet where I come from, Orono.

The riding of Grey at the moment, soon to become Grey-Owen Sound, is such a beautiful, wonderful riding. I've often wondered, given that parameter, why it wasn't represented by New Democrats, because I just thought it was such a super, wonderful area. I'm not going to take away from the member, who also really is a friend and colleague and a super representative for his riding. He often stands in this House debating issues on behalf of Grey and he's a very forceful person for that riding. Notwithstanding the fact that we haven't got a New Democrat there, I would accept the member as a very fine substitute at this point in time.

With that I will support his name change, because I feel he is representing his riding and he's representing the council that has asked him to endorse this. In fact this is not some idea he has, but it's really being put forward by the people, and as such I think we in this Legislature should also recognize that and support the motion of the member for Grey.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak in support of my colleague's resolution -- actually private member's bill -- this afternoon, second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act, in the name of Mr Bill Murdoch, riding of Grey.

Of course, as we've heard in every speech, it's a very simple matter today. It will change the name of the riding from Grey to Grey-Owen Sound in recognition of the great city of Owen Sound, 20,000 people, a geographically distinct city but also a politically distinct city. They're neighbours and good friends, but they are different, and I think to give the recognition to the city of Owen Sound is a very commendable initiative.

As we've heard said by a number of speakers this morning, there are two resolutions, one from the city of Owen Sound and one from the county of Grey, both indicating support of this resolution, so we see tangible evidence of local municipal council support, which has been solicited I believe by the member for Grey in his leadership role in representing his riding, which he accomplishes very well at all times.

Grey is to the north of my own riding of Wellington, so I think I know it quite well. It's geographically adjacent and I know the people are very similar. The small towns are very similar. The industry, the farms, the rolling countryside are all very similar. We share many different interests and issues between Grey and Wellington. The member for Huron, the member for Bruce, we all sort of represent the same types of ridings in rural Ontario, and there are a number of issues that we are concerned about.

My colleague the member for Grey has made representation in this House many, many times on the issues that concern his riding. He's done an outstanding job representing his riding. Second, when I think of the member for Grey, the thing that comes to mind is the outstanding service he gives to his riding in his constituency. I don't know of a harder-working member in his own riding. I know that every weekend he's spent going from event to event to event, running constantly to ensure that he gets around to meet as many people of his riding as possible, to meet his constituents so he knows their concerns and he's able to come back to Toronto and represent them. I think very highly of the member for Grey and the work he has done in that respect.

A number of other names of representatives of Grey have come up in this morning's discussion, people like Eric Winkler and Bob McKessock and Eddie Sargent. I know a couple of them. I know them all by reputation very well. They were all excellent members, I believe. I know that the member for Grey is following in that fine distinction of outstanding service to his constituents.

I would just like to say once again I intend to support this private member's bill. I think it's an important issue of community recognition. I would urge all members to do that this morning.

1050

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I am pleased to join in this debate on the member for Grey's bill. When the question of names comes up, one thing that springs to mind is a famous quote from Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

It suggests what the member for Bruce was saying: What difference does it make what we call our ridings? To be truthful, I would have thought that the member for Grey would have wanted to call his riding Kingston and The Islands II, because I think, and I thought when I came here it was generally agreed that no riding could be called anything finer than Kingston and The Islands. There's something exotic about it; I think it strikes the proper chord to give you a lift that would add to the tone and the substance of the debate here.

However, I think it's important to realize we can't all be called Kingston and The Islands, much as we'd like to be. But there's another point here as well. This kind of debate raises the historical aspect: Just where did the names come from for these ridings? Chairing a committee that's looking at new heritage legislation, I'm very pleased to say that it's a very important aspect, the kinds of decisions we make regarding things as intangible as names. I'm pleased to hear that the member for Grey has looked at this very carefully and in fact taken a page from the New Democratic book by consulting very widely on this question before he's made this leap.

However, I do want to say that Kingston and The Islands -- first of all, people say, "Just what are those islands?" Let's put them in the record right now. They are Howe Island, Wolf Island and Amherst Island and have been included in the name since 1966. The other thing, though, is that there is a rural aspect to Kingston and The Islands, namely, Pittsburgh township, a thriving area of some 10,000 people that doesn't figure in the name Kingston and The Islands, yet is a very important part of it. I think this speaks to the member's concern that all aspects of his riding be represented.

But going back to what the member for Bruce said, I think it's probably not so important what the name of the riding is, it's what the member does. I think it's fair to say, though, you can have both. Why not have a name like Kingston and The Islands, which is an estimable, proud and honourable name, and a hardworking member? I think they go together. Not only that, it sets a very high standard to reach for. That's the kind of tradition we're trying to build.

I realize the member for Grey is attempting to start over and that's why he's included a new name in his title. He has chosen one community from several, I think, very honourable and thriving communities in his riding. I certainly wish him luck. I think there are some solid things he can do. Certainly, by looking at what our Treasurer has come up with in his budget, he can think about the priorities we've set, that is, job creation, protecting social services and controlling the deficit, and look to those kinds of things to work in his riding to build the kind of reputation that several of our ridings on this side enjoy, and I think in particular of Kingston and The Islands.

I am very pleased to associate the proud tradition that my riding has with this riding as it begins its history. The best of luck to the member for Grey.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to join the debate in the brief time I have. I'm actually one of the member for Grey's constituents. I have my cottage up there, and indeed many of the people of York Mills have cottages in Grey county. I'm delighted to support this bill. I'm delighted to support Bill in his bill to change the name. It's reflective of the fact that he wants to truly reflect the wishes of the people.

Grey county is a wonderful place, filled with people with good, honest values. Bill Murdoch represents those values. He's in favour of less government, less government intrusion, but he's concerned about the social wellbeing of people. Indeed, his wife worked tirelessly for many years in social services. His concerns for his county are well reflected in this bill and everything he does, the hard work in this House and in his riding, are very reflective of this.

I want to congratulate the member and say: "Bill, keep on representing me well up in Grey. Make sure that market value reassessment is not passed in Grey and continue to prosper as the member for this riding for many years and many elections when we're the government of Ontario, when we start putting Ontario back to work and getting taxes down. I know you'll do a fine job as the minister. I congratulate you and I'm pleased to support you."

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I apologize. Is there time left for the -- 60 seconds. The member for Durham Centre.

Mr White: I rise to support my friend from Owen Sound and Grey, but I also want to clarify some points my colleague the member for Durham East made. First of all, Durham is not in my friend's area. There is a town called Durham, but the region of Durham and the five or six ridings that call themselves Durham have nothing to do with that town, unfortunately. They have to do with the fact that it's the regional municipality of Durham we represent.

Many people might think, coming from a riding called Durham Centre, that my riding is in fact right in the middle of the region; it's not. It's in the middle of the heart of all the people in the region, of course, but not in the geographical heart. My riding actually is composed of the urban areas of Whitby, which extends far up, and the northern half of Oshawa. Durham West and Durham East, although they seem like they're not in the centre, are not peripheral ridings.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague the member for Bruce used all the Liberal time. I would like to go on record that I will be supporting Bill 9.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. The member for Grey.

Mr Murdoch: First, I would like to thank all the members here who supported this resolution: Paul Klopp from Huron, Al McLean from Simcoe East, Ted Arnott from Wellington, Gord Mills from Durham East, Gary Wilson from Kingston and The Islands -- that's an excellent name -- David Turnbull from York Mills, Drummond White from Durham Centre and Ben Grandmaître. How would I help not thanking Ben.

Ben has helped me out in many things when Ben was the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Grey county. We worked together on some problems with the Niagara Escarpment and we have an industry up there due to Ben's hard work. He phoned us one night, we came down, we discussed things and got it all sorted out. We appreciate the work you've done for us then, Ben, and I know we'll work together in the future.

I want to just reiterate that both the city of Owen Sound and the county of Grey have supported this. The city of Owen Sound, to some of my members over there, is a separated city. It is not part of the county, so this is one of the reasons I would like to recognize that. Hanover, Meaford and Thornbury, while being proud urban centres, are part of Grey county which they are also proud to be part of. We have the two distinct municipalities and this is why we want to reflect this.

I also would like to say that I think there is something in a name. People are proud of their names. I'm proud of my name and I think all members in the House are proud of their names and the names of their ridings and I think this is an important thing. One member mentioned that maybe some of the other members from my riding weren't as concerned about their name. I think they were. It's just that their ridings at that time were different.

In 1987 there was restructuring and my riding became totally the riding of Grey county and Owen Sound. I think this reflects that. I thank everyone for their support.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

AMBULANCE OFFICERS DAY

Mr Morrow moved resolution 11:

That in the opinion of this House, since ambulance officers work in a stressful environment and in life and death situations, February 20 in each year should be recognized and proclaimed as Ambulance Officers Day.

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

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I rise today to address the proclamation of February 20 as Ambulance Officers Day. Back when I was first approached by ambulance officers, I had very little knowledge of what was involved in the job. I, like most others, just saw people who appeared in the middle of a crisis, did their job and disappeared. After hours of meetings, I now have a better understanding of what it takes to work in this type of situation, to enter a home and see a child just after he's been burned by a cigarette, or arrive at a bus crash to assist injured people in a tangle of wreckage, or transfer a patient from one hospital to another as their body is ravaged by cancer. It is enough to make me have a deeper respect for all the members of this profession. Every time an ambulance passes me now, I pause, I take a little time, I think just a little differently than I did a few short months ago.

I will discuss the training and education needed by these civil servants before they are hired, the ongoing upgrading needed, the job stress, plus the life-threatening occurrences that are part of their employment. Before one can even be considered for this position, a prospective ambulance officer must first complete a one-year course at a community college. In Ontario, 10 colleges offer this course, with Fanshawe, Niagara, St Clair and Conestoga being the representative schools in the southwestern area. The curriculum of this schooling includes: anatomy and physiology, patient care, basics in psychology and psychiatric behaviour, practical skills in care of ambulance equipment, infection control, driving skills, care of the ambulance, administrative procedures that include integration of dispatch care and patient assessment skills.

After the course is completed, successful graduates must take an emergency medical care assistance examination, which is administered by the Ministry of Health, and if they pass are allowed to seek employment anywhere in the province with a private company or even with the government of Ontario. But this is not the end of their educational involvement. Ambulance officers must continue to upgrade their skills in new equipment, new medical procedures and new techniques. Besides this, recertification must continually be done in the areas of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR as we better know it, first aid, they must receive inoculations for hepatitis B and maintain their class F driver's licence. That's quite a bit of work.

Treatment in most communities involves arriving at the scene and getting the injured person to a hospital for medical assistance as quickly as possible. The only service they will perform is the administering of oxygen, but there are times, in life-threatening situations, where they must do defibrillation.

In the Hamilton and Toronto areas, paramedics are also on duty. Besides having completed their year in community college, they received specialized training from the base hospital in basic and advanced life support skill maintenance. This gives them training in specialized areas including IV therapy, use of certain drugs for pain relief and methods of insertion of tubes to assist breathing. The treatment someone would receive is comparable to the first 15 minutes in emergency. This means that highly trained ambulance officers can, with the assistance of the medical staff at a base hospital, begin treatment of a patient in the ambulance. This, besides stabilizing the patient in transit, also gives the hospital information on the status of the incoming person that will increase survivability. In some communities, this gives the hospital time to put a team of specialized health care staff on standby, ready for the patient's arrival.

There are at present roughly 4,000 ambulance officers in the province of Ontario, which is a substantial number; roughly 16% of them are women. This used to be a male-dominated field, but I'm glad that is quickly changing.

There are constant stresses that go with this type of employment. In a discussion with ambulance officers, during an average 10-hour shift there are 7.5 calls per vehicle, which roughly adds up to 1.5 million calls throughout the province per year, 40% of these calls being emergencies involving life-threatening situations, including heart attacks, car accidents, domestic violence, airplane crashes, drowning and fires.

When someone is wearing a uniform in the middle of a dispute with weapons involved, dangerous situations can and often do take place: Some ambulance officers have been shot as they arrive on the scene of an injury. With the assistance of firefighters and police, it is possible for these professionals to quickly remove those who are injured from the dispute.

One shining example of the commitment of ambulance officers to their work was during the Mississauga train derailment. I'm sure everybody in this House still remembers that incident 10 years ago. Within eight hours, over 120 ambulances were on the site from all over the province. Three hospitals were evacuated and all surrounding nursing homes also had residents moved. During that time, officers worked between 16 and 24 hours per day to get their job done. This of course is not the only time this happens, but it is an example of how services can be coordinated during a dangerous event.

Air ambulance officers also serve, in the use of paramedics, to assist the transfer of patients from one hospital to another for more specialized treatment that may include organ donations or transplants.

Ambulance officers, working closely with the staff of the Ministry of Health, have instituted developments in equipment to assist patients and staff. Presently field testing is taking place on a brand-new stretcher that reduces the amount of strength needed to lift an injured person into an ambulance. Members of this House should know that a person will be lifted four different times between the accident and his or her placement in a bed in a hospital. With the average weight of 200 pounds per patient, 80 pounds for a stretcher and 30 pounds for equipment, there would and could be severe stress on the back of each staff person. This new equipment should make travel safer and also reduce injuries to medical staff.

Using Oakville as a focus, informal celebrations of Ambulance Officers Day have occurred, with events like hockey tournaments. In 1992, that brought over 300 officers together and raised over $2,500, which was donated to the children's ward at Credit Valley Hospital.

What this proclamation would do is formalize a specific day that recognizes the work done by ambulance officers, the unrecognized emergency services. It is my hope that this will get women and men together in big and small groups in communities all over Ontario to pat each other on the back for all the work they do for our health care system.

This proclamation is not something that will change the face of the province but accomplishes something very special and very personal. The 1990s have become a very cynical time, with many people constantly criticizing government, civil servants, media and even their neighbours. Instead of this, I am hoping that more time is spent on sharing what we have in common than arguing about differences. A proclamation that recognizes the commitment ambulance officers give to the community is a very small action on behalf of the members of this chamber to women and men who work in life and death struggles every day.

I would like now to close by saying that there are ambulance officers in the building today to rally some members. I understand that they're having something outside at 12 o'clock and I would like all members of the House to join them and to have a talk to them.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and I commend Mr Morrow for bringing the issue of ambulance operations to the floor of the Legislature. I recall that the member's last contribution to private members' hour was also on a health care issue, and I think it's useful to have these matters before us in the House so there can be a generic debate outside a specific government policy or opposition response or proposals.

I can speak, like many others in the House, quite personally about my gratitude to ambulance workers. As a young teenager, my own life was saved by skilled attendants after I was thrown from a car on to the Queen Elizabeth Way after our automobile was devastated by a hit-and-run driver. The training and the skills and the quick thinking of that crew meant that emergency care was provided on the road, in the ambulance and right into the emergency department of St Joseph's Hospital. One of the attendants had managed to pick up every single one of my teeth, which had been scattered on the road, the shoulder and the ditch, and carried them into the hospital, where they were all ultimately stitched back in, which accounts somewhat for the way I look today when I either smile or growl.

1110

Some 10 years later, after that personal incident, I once again had an opportunity to be grateful for the skills of ambulance attendants when my oldest daughter was transferred to the Hospital for Sick Children in a high-risk situation. My stories could be repeated, I have no doubt, by everyone in this chamber and by hundreds of thousands of people across the province. They're personal and they're real and they reflect the daily and nightly work of ambulance attendants.

When we were looking through material that might be interesting to bring to the floor in the context of this discussion, an enterprising researcher in the legislative library came across a book, called A Century of Red Blankets, written by James Hanna in 1982 as a history of ambulance service in Ontario.

Mr Hanna's research takes us back to 1880 when an anonymous female benefactor presented Ontario's first ambulance to the Toronto General Hospital. It was a solitary horse-drawn carriage, and while it was the first in Canada, it followed a tradition going back to Napoleon's battlefields where field hospitals known as "hôpitaux ambulants," or "moving hospitals," transported medical personnel to the field site, not patients away from it.

Napoleon's chief surgeon, Baron Larrey, who developed the field hospital, was dissatisfied with that approach and developed the "ambulance volante," or "flying ambulance," which at that time were horse-drawn vehicles capable of carrying wounded and their medications to a care sector. Those vehicles had floors which lifted out to double as stretchers.

I will refer to Mr Hanna's book for only one other piece of history, but I do commend it to those members who might enjoy his well-documented presentation. He tells us that ambulance services in Ontario were slow to begin because health care was usually delivered in people's homes by physicians, largely because it was impractical to do otherwise because of long distances, few hospitals and uncertain roads, which meant that emergency care was generally provided at the patient's bedside. Hanna writes:

"Where ambulance service existed at all it was usually provided by the local undertaker, often with the same carriage used for funerals. How the undertaker fell heir to this role is the subject of conjecture. One popular hypothesis is that he was the only one to possess a carriage, other than a haulage wagon, sufficiently long to accept the prone human form."

Even when ambulances first came into being, first at the Toronto General and then at Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, the local undertaker continued to provide service. Hanna tells us:

"It is interesting to note the term 'Private Ambulance' on many of the early ambulances operated by undertakers in the larger centres. This was a sure sign to those about that their neighbour was 'going in style' and not being carried away in the city-owned ambulance that carried the drunk, the infectious and the indigent sick."

We've seen the evolution of ambulance services. At the turn of the century ambulances were operated by hospitals, undertakers, volunteers and cities. Today they continue to be operated by those same people and by others as well. In the early days payment was supposed to be made by the patient to the undertaker, although we're told by Hanna that the payment was rarely collected because the undertaker probably expected to see the patient on another occasion. That too has evolved from a fee-for-service situation to OHIP coverage for medically necessary ambulance services with a copayment feature.

Training requirements have changed for ambulance attendants, and as those requirements have changed we have attendants working with different qualifications and formal training, sometimes within the same ambulance service today. The equipment has become more sophisticated, moving from the one-horse carriage to vehicles carrying highly technical equipment and monitoring devices and telecommunications networks. The air ambulance system adds another dimension to the sophistication of the system.

I think, along with the member, that we can all be proud of the high level of emergency health care we have in Ontario today and of the practitioners who are responsible for the delivery of that care. Along with others in the House, I salute them.

In my remarks today I particularly want to walk into the past and trace the rather ad hoc evolution of ambulance services to reach the point where we have settled today, because this very day, I'm told, ambulance operators are meeting at Queen's Park and ambulance attendants will gather in a demonstration on the front steps. The issues that are at the tops of their minds are ones which spring directly from the evolution of ambulance services in Ontario.

Successive governments have responded to emergency service needs. In 1968 the Tories centralized responsibility at the provincial level for the development, control and funding of ambulance services, and in 1973 ambulance services were transferred from the Ontario Hospital Services Commission to the Ministry of Health. In 1989 Elinor Caplan, then Minister of Health, injected $18 million into the system to enhance the quality of ambulance services, regional trauma networks and critical care hotlines.

In February 1991, then-Health Minister Evelyn Gigantes announced a review of emergency medical services, chaired by Dr Gene Swimmer. That report is now available, and following post-report consultations a final report will be submitted to the Minister of Health in June. To date the current minister has not responded to that initial report, and perhaps that is appropriate within the context of the process.

I want to tell you that I won't be supporting this resolution today, because I think real action is far more important than the symbolic action which is being called for in this resolution. I believe that if ambulance attendants want real recognition and if ambulance operators hope for a continued place in the system, they will have to look to the very real actions by the Minister of Health in mid-June.

The government is not bound to implement or honour a resolution of this House, and in my view, while Mr Morrow has put forward an honourable sentiment in his resolution, it is one with little meaning. Furthermore, there is a day for the recognition of the skills and work and contributions of all workers, and that is Labour Day.

The Swimmer report, to which I referred, contains 109 recommendations, one of which is the creation of a crown agency commission to be the sole provider of all air and land ambulances across Ontario and the sole employer of all ambulance workers. Another recommendation is the universal availability of the 911 service in all towns and regions in Ontario. In Swimmer's recommendations, one bargaining unit for all ambulance workers would be put into place, with a limited strike provision. A distinct separation between emergency and non-emergency services would be introduced into the system. Recommendations surround implementation of base hospital and advanced life support systems, training, pension plans and other issues.

Some of the Swimmer report recommendations have validity and have been recognized through other reports and indeed by actions of previous ministers of health and previous governments. But one of the recommendations which will itself create stress and controversy is the intention to ease the independent operator from the system, to buy him out according to a formula. This issue has not been explored in any real depth in the consultation period. From the date of completion of the Swimmer report until the final day when the minister finishes and receives the report from post-report meetings the time is far too short. It's now opportune for the Minister of Health to speak out and advise us where she sees the place of the independent ambulance operator within the system and where she sees the place of the ambulance attendant in the system. When we hear the Minister of Health's response to the Swimmer report we will know precisely the government's intent to honour ambulance workers and ambulance operators. We await that information patiently.

We have seen an ideological base for many of the decisions of this government. We saw actions in relationship to independent operators of child care centres which leave those independent operators in a position where the buyout is almost the only appropriate step to be taken. Despite parental choice and the same licensing requirements and quality of care that's provided by child care workers in the private centres, an ideological base to that decision has meant that $75 million available to child care has been diverted to a purpose not associated with the delivery of child care services.

The Swimmer report would see the same thing occur in the ambulance sector, where money would be diverted from the delivery of health care services to the buyout of private operators. The minister has not spoken to this. It is important for people in Ontario to know the place of the private operator who has been a part of the history, functioning and quality delivery of care. Where does that person fit in this government's ideology?

I think we in the House understand that there have been questions surrounding the place of medical laboratory services and of other health care services delivered by independent operators. Through this report, and because of the lack of the minister's response to the report to date, we are left in a position where we see once again another valid service now provided through an independent operator being threatened.

I will not be supporting this resolution. I believe that Labour Day is the day when all workers are celebrated for the skill, effort, stress and contribution they make to our society as a whole. I believe that symbolic action is not enough. We need to hear from the minister on this issue.

1120

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this resolution from the member for Wentworth East. He is asking the Legislature to recognize and proclaim February 20 in each year as Ambulance Officers Day in Ontario because ambulance officers work in a stressful environment and in life and death situations.

I'm in complete agreement with the principle of this resolution. There's no doubt in my mind that ambulance officers, along with firefighters and police officers, often work under extremely stressful and life-threatening conditions. One moment they will be maintaining their equipment at a leisurely pace and the next moment their heartbeats accelerate as they respond to an alarm. Unfortunately a majority of these alarms turn out to be false due to faulty equipment, malicious intent or individual error. This poses a very real threat to ambulance officers and to firefighters and police officers who unexpectedly run into a very real emergency after becoming complacent about responding to numerous false alarms.

Recognizing and proclaiming an Ambulance Officers Day sounds good in theory, but it will do little if anything to relieve stress and properly equip emergency personnel to deal with life and death situations. To accomplish this I would suggest that the NDP government give serious consideration to my private member's Bill 2, An Act to regulate Alarm Systems, which was introduced and received first reading on April 7, 1992. Members will no doubt recall that I introduced this private member's bill back on November 29, 1990 after this government took power, but it died on the order paper when the Legislature prorogued on December 19, 1991.

My private member's bill is related to the resolution we are debating here today. It would establish a licensing system for those installing alarm systems and a system of fines for false alarms that cause an unnecessary response from emergency personnel. Emergency personnel have indicated that more than three quarters of the alarms to which they respond are false and result in an enormous amount of wasted time and money. The rise in false alarms in Ontario is drawing emergency personnel away from dealing with really serious situations. I believe repeat false alarms can make emergency personnel complacent about their investigations and expose them to danger when responding to real crisis situations.

I received a lot of support from emergency personnel and municipal officials when I first introduced the private member's bill in 1990. As well, a number of solicitors general under the previous Liberal government and the current NDP government have indicated they favour this type of private member's bill because there is presently no legislation on the books to address the issue of false alarms.

While I agree there is a very real need for this type of legislation, the provincial government is jeopardizing the safety of our emergency personnel by not moving on this issue as soon as possible. It would go a long way towards relieving stress in their work environment. Other assistance is available in the form of adequate equipment and appropriate facilities.

A prime example of an inappropriate facility is the $440,000 Taj Mahal ambulance station on Highway 11 near Washago, which many people have come to call Washago's new ski slope because of its huge sloping roof. The provincial representative for Local 314 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has called this structure a mind-boggling waste of taxpayers' money.

The Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie was directed by the Ministry of Health to build and operate an ambulance substation near Washago and a second one near Craighurst. A hospital official said the roof is large to enable people to see it better when they want to locate it easily during an emergency. The OPSEU representative responded that you don't want people coming to the substation because ambulance attendants could very well be out on a call. He said the whole point of having an ambulance service is to be able to get help to people when they call and ask for it. No one goes to an ambulance depot looking for emergency service; they call.

Rather than just recognizing and proclaiming February 20 each year as Ambulance Officers Day because they work in a stressful environment and in life and death situations, let's give them the appropriate level of support and assistance to better enable them to deal with that stress.

I want to repeat the news announcement that was in the paper with regard to the ambulance stations: "It's an emergency building. The reason the roof is so large is so people can see it in an emergency situation. You can't take the time to try to locate the building. It has to be very visible." That is from a member of the Royal Victoria Hospital staff, which was responsible for building these two buildings at $440,000 each.

What we need is an extension of our 911 number; that's where they should be putting more effort in order to be able to cover more of the province. The government should be putting more effort into the committee that was established to look into 911 across this province. I have not seen where it has established that for emergency calls that our ambulance people have to answer.

It is my understanding that the government is in the process of developing its response to the Swimmer report. It is a report recommending yet another level of bureaucracy. My understanding is that there is some 109 recommendations in that report, so it should come as no surprise that our party is prepared to fight any further attempts of this government to eradicate the private sector involvement in the delivery of health and social services.

We believe the private sector has an important role in the delivery of ambulance services in this province and we will fight this government to ensure that the role is not infringed upon.

Where does the minister stand with regard to the Swimmer report? We have not heard one word from her with regard to the easing out of the private sector, which I am sure she would very likely want to do.

1130

I have a bill we call the boating bill, which is try to get some control on the waterways of this province. If this legislation were passed to regulate and make sure there is more safety on our waterways, we would have fewer emergency calls. This is what I call prevention, not after the fact. Let's do it before it happens. That boating bill would certainly give the police the authority to regulate and to make sure anybody on that waterway who is driving a vessel knows what the rules of the waterway are. That way it's preventive medicine, so to speak, that will relieve our emergency ambulance operators of some of the calls they may have.

I understand that there are some people here today from right across this province demonstrating -- they don't demonstrate; they're good, law-abiding people, but they want to be here to be recognized and they want to be here so we know they are important. We know how important they are. They've got to take all these courses, they've got to keep their licences up to date, they've got to get the CPR recommendations, emergency. Nobody knows the value unless you need to call. It's just like insurance; everybody thinks he's got great insurance until he wants to use it. I can't say that for the ambulance operators. We all think they're great and they are. They've saved many people's lives.

When we look at this bill today and having February 20 as a day to recognize ambulance officers, I believe it's important but I also believe the firefighters and our police officers are all part of that group that supplies the services to the people. I think a better effort on behalf of the government and the committee that was set up to look at the 911 number is that it be expanded so people right across this province would have the opportunity to dial that when they need it.

I commend the people we're speaking about here today, with the stressful environment they work in. I want to support this resolution and perhaps it will lead to something else being established.

I should mention that some time ago I introduced a bill here that was called Heritage Day. I was looking at the third Monday in February as a holiday to recognize our history. We talked about our past and looked towards the future when we discussed such a bill. That bill would have given us a day whereby we could reflect upon the people we're speaking about here today. We could have something in that bill that this could be recognized as a special day for emergency people who supply the service that we have across this province, namely, our police officers, our firefighters and our ambulance workers. Perhaps when that bill receives second reading it could go to committee and could be amended to include this very aspect within that bill. We could then have a holiday on the third Monday of February -- it's one of the months where there is not one; the member from Ottawa is thinking about going to Naples on that day, I'm sure -- where we could then recognize those three groups of people for the effort they put in to care for and to look after the people in this province.

As I said before, we don't realize the value we have in the services that are provided through our health care system in emergencies until we have to use them, and I'm pleased to be here today to support my colleague on his bill. Discussing this type of thing is what leads to making the public more aware and involved in exactly what we're talking about. While I want to support the bill, I think we can deal with this type of thing in the heritage bill, as I indicated. I also talked about the alarm bill I had with regard to false alarms. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a pleasure for me to rise and join in support of the resolution of my colleague the member for Wentworth East. I too had been thinking about a similar resolution, something to the effect of an ambulance services week being declared. We give recognition to Police Services Week, we have Fire Prevention Week, but we don't always recognize the other significant portion of emergency service that is provided, that is, ambulance services throughout our different communities. There is no doubt that Police Services Week and the work our fire officers do needs to be recognized, but I also think we need to recognize the significant contribution that ambulance officers and ambulance services provide in this province.

When many of us think of health care, we automatically think of hospitals -- that's the first thing that comes to mind -- hospitals or doctors' offices, going for our health care. We sometimes forget that when we have a true health care crisis as the result of an accident or something else, the first people there to treat us are ambulance officers.

I'm on the road quite a bit, as many of the members are, and I'm sure we all hear the sirens go by and see the ambulance officers. I think this is a good opportunity to remind all people that ambulances are emergency vehicles and that all of us on the road should do our best to get out of their way as quickly as possible, because they are responding probably to an emergency, in many cases a life-and-death situation.

I think it takes a very special person to be an ambulance officer, to be able to respond to all the different situations like car accidents, where people are in very desperate situations; as the member for Wentworth East has said, to be called to places where there may be guns involved and shooting going on. It's a very dangerous thing to be doing. It's also very dangerous to be in a high-speed ambulance on the way to the hospital, trying to get a person there very quickly.

Many people have gone into the field of ambulance officers as a career. The unfortunate thing is that many people who are there are not going to be able to continue being ambulance officers due to a great deal of stress and workplace injury. Recently, I met with my local ambulance service in Oxford and found it a very educational experience. I really didn't have a good understanding of how the system works. What hit home was the fact that there are many ambulance officers on compensation these days because of the stresses and strains of the job, trying to move bodies and trying to be careful not to cause any injury while moving bodies, which in some cases are very heavy. That puts a great strain on backs. As much as we're all taught how to lift things properly, when you're involved as an ambulance operator, you can't always do that. You're not in ideal circumstances. So I think it's very important that we recognize them.

The member for Halton Centre said she wasn't going to support this resolution because ambulance officers, like all other people, can be recognized on Labour Day. But we do recognize our police officers for their bravery and courage, as we should. We have medals for bravery and courage for them. We have the same thing for firefighters. I'm surprised we don't offer medals in this province for ambulance officers who do respond in very courageous ways to life-and-death situations. I certainly hope some consideration would be given to them.

I think ambulance services, the work ambulance officers do, is one of the least understood portions of our health care system by the public. I must say, until my recent meeting with my local service, my understanding was very poor. We see them go by, we know we need them in an emergency, but we don't understand some of the systems and some of the problems.

I think there are some concerns as to how the system operates. One of the concerns that was expressed to me was how the dispatch system works in our area. We have a central dispatch and it calls out the ambulances. The problem is that you have supervisors at the local detachment in Woodstock and they can't keep in direct connection with the ambulances, because it's done through a central dispatch. That does create some difficulties.

1140

But there is no doubt that there is a need for this day. I suggest there's probably even a need to go further and have an Ambulance Services Awareness Week, where the emphasis can be on the many dedicated people who are ambulance officers. Again, we all should take time to reflect on the very tremendous work these people do. We take them for granted, but when we need them they're always there in a very professional manner, doing their best to respond and get us to more medical treatment if we need that.

I've read some of the stuff in the Swimmer report and will be waiting with great interest to see how the ministry responds. But I'm also concerned by the fact that ambulance officers overall are extremely well-trained individuals and have the ability to do a lot more functions that they're not allowed to do right now. I'm very concerned about that, given that we know that in many cases, if it's a heart attack victim, what occurs in the first 10 to 15 minutes may determine whether he lives or not, and also how he responds in terms of his recovery. We need to look seriously at whether we can increase the activities ambulance officers undertake to ensure that we're working in the best interests of those victims who suffer heart attacks and that they can get that treatment as quickly as possible to increase their chances of recovery as much as possible. As I say, I will wait with great interest to see how the Minister of Health will respond to some of the recommendations in the Swimmer report.

I'm going to conclude my comments here and just say that I think all of us should be supporting the resolution from the member for Wentworth East to recognize the significant dedication of our many ambulance officers across this province and throughout all our communities. There is no doubt that all of us would be in worst circumstances and, as the member for Halton Centre indicated, that without their fine and dedicated work, unfortunately some of us might not even be here today.

Congratulations to the ambulance officers. Keep up the great work you're doing for all of us.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to be able to join for even a short time in this particular debate to pay tribute to those who are providing a service to the people of the province of Ontario which is very much appreciated, particularly by those who are in the family of people who have been injured, have been ill or who themselves have had this experience.

I don't think that people recognize fully, until such time as they require an ambulance, just how important it is to have people who move expeditiously and operate in a very kind and caring way to patients across the province. Many elderly patients at home are visited by an ambulance when an emergency arises. Very often of course that is a life-and-death circumstance, or at least one where there is serious illness, and it is very encouraging to know that there are dedicated people who are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whether the weather is good or bad, under all circumstances.

I think all of us in this Legislature owe a debt to those people who have dedicated themselves to this particular profession. Very often the people who receive most of the accolades are the doctors, particularly those who are involved in spectacular operations. I think all of us know that there are people who are first on the scene. The scene they see is not a very pleasant one in many circumstances. I think of major accidents, of automobile accidents, of disasters, where those who are involved with the ambulances, those who are in the ambulances, are first on the scene providing first aid and ensuring that the people are moved to a hospital facility as quickly as possible. I think all of us in this Legislature pay tribute to those people today and I'm pleased that this resolution has come forward so that we have the opportunity to do so.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): It's a privilege and an honour to stand up and support my colleague's resolution today and talk in the short time I have about our ambulance workers. In my area we have a number of them. As I said before, my area is a large area of Grey and Owen Sound and there are a lot of different situations they get into, in the wintertime especially. We have harsh winters in our area and they have to go to many back roads and areas where people have accidents and things like that. They have to be there. We certainly appreciate all the work they do. If it wasn't for some of the ambulance workers in our area, there would be a lot more deaths happening. They're there first. They get right there as soon as they can.

I must point out too they have to work, as the member for St Catharines pointed out, seven days a week. They also have to work on Sundays. It is one of the workforces out there that works on Sundays and the weekends. Our area, being a highly tourist area, has a lot of different accidents that happen because of the different natures of some of the sports and things like that. So we certainly appreciate all the work they do.

I will be supporting this resolution. I want to thank the member for Wentworth East for bringing this forward. I think it's an excellent idea.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): It's a pleasure to be here, to be able to speak in support of this resolution. Ambulance workers certainly are among many workers in our society who are unrecognized and who ought to be recognized, when you look at the stress they have, the value of the work they do and the contribution they make. From personal discussions with many ambulance workers, I know the difficulty of the job. I know the stress, because I've met those who have had to take time off to cope with the stress they've had on their jobs, including the physical aspect.

We recognize in our society police with Police Week. We recognize firefighters with Fire Prevention Week. We recognize nurses for the work they do with Nurses Week. So I think it's only appropriate we should recognize another very key component of the health care area and that is ambulance workers.

Ambulance workers are of course part of an emergency services group that includes physicians, nurses and dispatchers, all of whom contribute greatly. We perhaps should look at recognizing not only ambulance workers, but also all emergency health personnel. I know in the United States there have a week established, a National Emergency Medical Services Week. Perhaps we should look at that and consider that in this province, in order to recognize the contribution all emergency health workers make.

If we look at our ambulance system here in Ontario, it has done a good job. We have consistently had high-quality service. Our cost per call, cost per capita and response time make Ontario compare well with other jurisdictions. We've had quite a growth in the system. As a result, we have somewhat of a patchwork system in Ontario.

There are seven different types of ownership within the ambulance system. The ministry operates five dedicated air ambulances and also contracts with general aviation contractors on a per-trip basis. Nine of the 177 land ambulance services operating in the province are directly owned and operated by the Ministry of Health and four are run on contracts with the ministry. Sixty-six services are owned and operated by hospitals, 28 by volunteer services and four by municipalities. The last group of operators are private operators who were accorded this new status by regulation following the determination of the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal.

Last year, the ambulance service in this province handled a total of 1,180,022 calls. Of these, 519,846, or 44%, were emergency calls. That's quite a number of emergency calls and indication of the high level of importance the service has and the high level of emergency situations the workers have to deal with.

With our present system, I think there is concern with the change in our health care system, with the change in our hospital system, with the rationalization of our hospital system and with the need to have a health strategy that keeps health costs under control. We have to look to changes with respect to all health services and with respect to the ambulance services; that is no exception.

As a result of that need to look at changes, the government did commission the Swimmer report, and at the present time there is a committee established to review the Swimmer report and public consultation has occurred, began in Sudbury on April 15. A report on this matter is expected to be submitted to the minister by the end of June. At that time of course the ministry will look at the appropriate changes that may be needed to cope with the future demands on the system.

Again I urge all members to support this resolution.

1150

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham East.

[Applause]

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Is that for -- oh, okay. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

First of all, I'd just like to say what a pleasure it is today not only to rise to speak in support of my colleague the member for Wentworth East's motion but also to talk about Thursdays in general. I always find it so refreshing to be here, to be able to talk to resolutions colleagues bring forward in an openness free of any sort of pressure from the government we represent. We can truly speak and say things from our hearts.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): We always do, Gord.

Mr Mills: I know, but I find it somewhat regrettable that Thursday mornings don't seem to attract as many people as they should, because surely to goodness this period in time is the opportunity we have to say what we think and to really speak from our hearts. So it's a great pleasure for me to be here today to support the proclamation.

I'm just going to speak to the resolution about the Ambulance Officers Day. Previously, before my appointment to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I was the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. In that role I had a great opportunity to travel the province and to be closely associated, also under the umbrella of the Solicitor General, with the firefighters. Through my connection with the firefighters I too came into close contact with many of the ambulance drivers and the ambulance attendants and those folks, and I must say that they left me with a tremendous impression of their professional knowledge, the way they dealt with situations. I know in my own riding of Durham East I'm amazed at the response time into rural communities when someone suffers a heart attack and the ambulance is right there at the door.

In addition to the ambulance people who are here today, I would like to take a few moments to recognize the ambulance staff in my riding, the ambulance drivers in Oshawa, the ambulance drivers in Whitby, the ambulance people in Port Perry and in Bowmanville, all of whom do such a wonderful, tremendous job in looking after the people in Durham East, mostly in very traumatic circumstances and in most circumstances in matters of life and death.

I commend the member. We have days to recognize doctors, days to recognize policemen, days to recognize nurses, and I can think of no better resolution than a day to recognize the tremendous contribution ambulance drivers make to our society in Ontario.

Mr Morrow: I would like to personally recognize three paramedics from Hamilton in my riding of Wentworth East -- I apologize if I get your last names wrong: Mario Posteraro, Jeff Dunford and David Donais.

I see giving ambulance officers a day of recognition as being a non-partisan issue, and it really saddened me that the member for Halton Centre used it as very petty politics to get at changes that should be made in the Ministry of Health. Yes, she's right, changes should be made, but they should not be made when you're trying to recognize somebody, especially the unrecognized emergency services. They're there to help us. Those people are there before the media gets there, they're there usually before the police and firefighters get there, they do their job and they get out.

I would like to thank the member for Simcoe East for his kind words of encouragement. I'd like to thank all the members of the government side for the support they've shown me in doing this. I would really like to thank the ambulance officers over the last two weeks who've shown me support and encouragement and given me a lot of material I can use. I'm very proud to stand in the House today to recognize them. I do believe they should be recognized every year for all the hard work they do. I look forward to seeing support for this from all three sides of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 9 standing in the name of Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch has moved second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

AMBULANCE OFFICERS DAY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 10 standing in the name of Mr Morrow.

Mr Morrow has moved private member's resolution 11. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1157.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

L'ÉCONOMIE DE L'ONTARIO

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je n'ai pas besoin de prouver à personne ici dans cette salle que les francophones de l'Ontario sont patients, même trop patients. Je ne connais pas de Franco-Ontarien qui soit content d'avoir à manifester devant cette Assemblée législative. J'ai pensé qu'il était important de donner au gouvernement des nouvelles de la part des citoyens francophones de l'Ontario.

J'ai le plaisir de m'entretenir à l'occasion avec Mme Claudette Gingras, femme d'affaires franco-ontarienne bien en vue. Mme Gingras attend des signes clairs du gouvernement sur la façon de sortir l'Ontario de la récession. Elle pense que le secteur privé peut grandement aider, à la condition qu'on lui en donne la possibilité.

Mme Gingras se demande pourquoi le gouvernement a l'air tellement enthousiasmé par l'idée des casinos, alors qu'il pourrait générer infiniment plus de revenus simplement en faisait ce que la majorité de la population veut en réalité, c'est-à-dire qu'on donne la possibilité à l'entreprise privée d'ici de concurrencer.

À l'heure actuelle, ça veux dire, entre autres choses, laisser les communautés qui le veulent injecter de l'argent dans leur économie le dimanche. Ça veut dire aussi abandonner nos nouvelles taxes sur l'essence, qui font fuir les consommateurs vers les États-Unis ; ça veut dire aussi donner la possibilité à la classe moyenne de mettre son argent ailleurs que dans les impôts et les taxes, et abandonner tout projet de réforme de la Loi sur les relations de travail.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the House leader. It concerns the first time in the history of Ontario that there's been no opportunity to have a full debate on a provincial budget in this Legislature. The only opportunity opposition members will have for debate will occur when the individual pieces of budgetary legislation come before us in the Legislature some time in the near future.

The NDP members keep telling people that they have an open and accessible government. They say they have an understanding about wealth creation, they say they have an approach to revenue and expenditure and they say they are concerned about integrity and credibility. That is not true. That's certainly not what the people are telling me. It's their propaganda program that they're running.

Ontario's economic difficulties are far too pressing to allow this government the luxury of playing political games, but that is exactly what the government House leader's doing by not allowing opposition members an opportunity to fully debate the April 30 budget.

It's a sad state of affairs when opposition members are prevented from bringing the concerns of their constituents to the attention of this government. Add this to the recession and the clear anti-business bias of this government and there's no question why our economy is reeling, job creators are under siege, taxpaying families are being deprived of hope and opportunity and the least fortunate in our society are being exposed to untold hardship.

Not only is the NDP government making history by not allowing a full budget debate, but it's making a bad situation worse for the people of Ontario.

RIDE FOR CANADA

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): During this time of constitutional crisis Canadians need and wish to express their affection and concern for their country and its future. What better time than during Canada's 125th anniversary? The provincial equestrian organizations across Canada have created an opportunity for Canadians to do just that. They have organized a Ride for Canada, 125 days of celebration of Canada's 125th anniversary.

The ride began February 28, 1992, from each coast of the country. Equestrians, cyclists, hikers, canoeists, skiers, snowmobilers and people of all ages are welcome to join the Ride for Canada and travel five miles along its route. On May 31, the Ride for Canada will be entering Ontario. They will travel a northern and a southern route. They'll be entering the York part of our riding on June 12, and on June 13 they will be entering the Durham part of our riding.

At the end of each day participants and members of the community will gather around a signal bonfire to sing and toast and celebrate Canada. For further information on the Ride for Canada, if any of the members want to come to see me, I can tell them how it is happening in their ridings or they can call my office for more information.

This project is a visible expression of people's affection and pride, all the peoples of Canada, and the Ride for Canada ends with participants from each coast of the country arriving in Ottawa on July 1, 1992. I encourage all members to participate in one way or another during this event.

BRONTE CREEK PROVINCIAL PARK

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The Ministry of Natural Resources has recently proposed that Bronte Creek Provincial Park be turned over to the Halton Region Conservation Authority. This request was made not for policy purposes but as a cost-saving measure, and that has been made very clear by MNR to people in my constituency, where the park is located.

Bronte Creek Provincial Park includes areas of natural and scientific features, Carolinian forest and provincially significant archaeological and historic areas. It includes natural areas for hiking, fishing and the study of our natural heritage. Within the Bronte Creek park is the Bronte Creek valley, recognized by the very ministry that wants to dispose of the park as the least disturbed and most diverse river valley along the northwestern Lake Ontario shore.

The Halton Region Conservation Authority is a fine operator of its sites and has a proven record with such areas as the Kelso Conservation Area and Crawford Lake Conservation Area, for example. However, the mandate of provincial parks is different from the mandate of conservation authorities. This should not happen. The Tory government discovered, to its peril, how people respond to the gutting of provincial parks. That the NDP is following the same road indicates that it too will soon learn how people feel about the stripping of our natural heritage when the only rationale for doing so is to find an apparently easy way to cut spending.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have here petitions signed by several thousand concerned residents of my riding who are worried about the fate of the Owen Sound Greys junior hockey team, which desperately needs financial resources to carry on. I am directing this to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because one way in which the team could raise money to assist with transportation, new equipment and education would be through 50-50 draws.

At present the minister feels that 50-50 draws should not be licensed because, when selling these tickets, the organization holding the draw cannot accurately forecast the exact amount of prize, simply because it does not know how many tickets will be sold. But it seems to me and to the supporters of my local hockey team and to many other worthwhile organizations that use the money from these draws for charitable purposes that the minister should consider allowing this form of fund-raising.

These groups need assistance to continue their valuable community services. Surely now, in these difficult economic times when there is little public money for grants for these purposes, the minister and her government should seriously look at sanctioning 50-50 draws. I suggest to the minister that perhaps if these draws were held in a manner which would encourage more accountability, she would consider allowing minor league sports teams, legions who donate to regional health centres and Canadian mental health, and churches to continue to aid and enhance their communities, not only in Grey but everywhere in Ontario.

DEAF CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Tuesday, May 26, 1992, the Ontario Cultural Society of the Deaf and Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf, a provincial school for the deaf, held their first biannual Deaf Children's Festival. I wish to share with the House how much I appreciated the opportunity to attend this event that was held at the provincial school for the deaf in Milton.

Over 600 deaf children from across the province participated in the Deaf Children's Festival and deaf pride activities. Exhibitions were held in the areas of art, drama, literature and poetry, and it was a real inspiration to see these children actively learning about their own culture, the deaf culture.

The Deaf Children's Festival was established with a goal to promote a positive image of deaf people in society, an image that can be shared by deaf children as well as by their families. It also was a means of increasing public awareness through this celebration of the life and culture of deaf people.

I would urge members of the House interested in learning more about this unique culture to read a newly published book which is called The Mask of Benevolence, and I have it here with me. This was written by Dr Harlan Lane, and it's a moving, informative book about the modern deaf culture and the deaf community's struggle to gain recognition of its language and culture. As my T-shirt says, "It's Time for Deaf Pride Now."

1340

BROADCAST OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In 1985 the government of Ontario, with the support of all political parties represented in the provincial Legislature, implemented the televised broadcasting of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The electronic Hansard allows the public of our province to view without editing, without interpretation and without interruption all activities that take place in the legislative chamber, thereby allowing viewers to see not only what decisions are made but how they are reached. It provides Ontario residents with an opportunity to view question period, all debates and the processing of legislation and to become aware of the variety of views that are expressed by MPPs.

Those who have access to the Ontario parliamentary network through cable television are able to tune in to legislative proceedings; however, those without this service must rely upon TVO to view at least the question period.

Unfortunately shortly after the election of the NDP government, but incidentally I'm sure, the provincial question period was relegated to midnight or later, thereby denying many Ontarians the chance to see their government held accountable by the opposition.

It is my hope that TVO will review its scheduling decision and permit Ontario viewers to see their elected representatives deal with important issues of the day at a more convenient hour, one which is earlier in the viewing day and more accessible to a greater number of interested citizens.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This week I sponsored a panel discussion on the government's proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. The six members on the panel represented both sides of the issue and gave excellent presentations. The discussion that followed was very lively and informative. My constituents expressed a great deal of alarm about the implications for both employees and employers if these proposals become law.

Mandating automatic unionization on workers when only 50% plus one have signed and without a secret ballot vote means certification would be granted when 49% of the employees do not wish to join the union. By eliminating petitions, those who have signed union cards lose the opportunity for sober second thought.

The extreme shift of power from management to unions will mean less investment in Ontario and fewer jobs. Many constituents think this is wrong. The existing playing field is already slanted in favour of the unions against the 96% of Ontario firms that are small business. Small business will not be able to function on a playing field tilted to this degree. The Ontario economy is stagnant. We need to attract business to Ontario, not to drive it away.

My constituents gave me a message to bring to Queen's Park: This is the wrong way to bring harmony to employee-employer relationships; instead of bringing about one-sided changes, government should be working with both employees and employers on job creation and ways to increase our productivity. That way will give Ontario prosperity.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): For my 90 seconds I haven't got a written statement because I wasn't apprised of the opportunity to speak until not 20 minutes ago. I'm going to use this time to say that as all members go back to their ridings this weekend, we should take some time and reflect upon our conduct in the House here. I think the name-calling of one another has to cease and that we have to reflect upon that. In my opinion there's absolutely no room at all in the Legislature for racist remarks or sexist remarks, and I am not alone.

I need to look at myself, because in the country I come from some of the language I'm used to using in normal conversation is unacceptable today, so I have to readjust my thoughts. I always called a woman a lady because that's the way I was brought up. I said all kinds of things that really are unacceptable.

Only last week I wrote an article in my local newspaper condemning the racist riots and the trouble in Toronto. I really put my foot in my mouth by referring to black people as coloured people, and I was told quite rightly that that was wrong. So I have to learn, and I urge all members to come to grips with this problem and go back and reflect. Let's make this a place where we all behave much better.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and it pertains to the matter we've been raising for some time in the House now, and that's jobs. I would say to the Treasurer that for many of us, and I think for all of us, the situation is getting rather desperate. Perhaps the best way to highlight it is to read a letter I received that's probably not atypical. I think all of us as members receive similar letters, but it says:

"Dear Mr Phillips, MPP:

"Sir, I have been out of work since last April 1991. I just don't know what to do next. My two boys are coming back to live with me, but I've run out of funds. Hardly any food in the house. What is going on with the government -- all of them? Your staff is sending me Job Mart each week and I thank you for that, but I need to work. Is there anything you can do? Please, let me know."

I read that letter because I think each of us, as we go back to our constituencies, will face similar individuals with similar questions. My question to the Treasurer is quite simple, and it's to ask him the question the constituent asked me: "I need to work. Is there anything you can do? Please, let me know." What am I to say when I see that individual?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It's no surprise or no secret the young people in this province are having a very difficult time finding employment this summer. It's going to be a very tough summer; we know that. We've tried to respond as best we can, given the very tight fiscal corner we're in. I know the opposition members of the Legislature understand that. There's been no opposition member of the Legislature who has suggested that we should've run up a higher deficit or increased taxes more in order to provide more government jobs. I believe the members of the opposition appreciate that dilemma and do understand it.

Having said that, it would, of course, have been nice to have put a lot more money into job creation than we did, but on the other hand we did make a substantial commitment to jobs in this budget. That was one of the three priorities in this budget: creating jobs, maintaining essential services and keeping the deficit in check. Those were our three priorities and we've done the best we could in that regard.

I don't question the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt that it would've been nice to have done more, but given what we had to work with, that's all we were able to do. But I've said it before, and the Premier said it: We will be doing more.

1350

Mr Phillips: I hope the Treasurer understood I wasn't talking about youth unemployment here. This was an individual who said his two sons were returning to live with him. I think he had been in the workforce for probably 30 years prior to his layoff, so it wasn't a youth situation.

I appreciate that we have a difference of opinion about how many jobs will be created by the budget, but to follow up, I said yesterday we will be pursuing this relentlessly until we begin to see some substantial improvement.

You will be aware, Treasurer, that if you were unemployed in 1990 the average length that you would be unemployed in this province would be about three months. If you're unemployed today, you will be out of work, on average, for six months. The situation is desperate and this letter that I read -- I dare say every member in the Legislature is getting similar letters daily.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: Recognizing that two years ago when people were laid off or unemployed they at least felt that within three months they would be in some prospect of a job, and that it now looks like it's at least six months on average, is this what the people who are laid off with plant closures in this province have to look forward to? Or can you assure them that job prospects are improving and that they will not have to look forward to, on average, six months of unemployment?

Hon Mr Laughren: As a matter of clarification, I did misunderstand the member's question initially. I thought he was talking about youth, and I appreciate the fact that he was not.

There is no doubt that the recession has been much more difficult not just than we thought but than anybody thought, and much more prolonged and severe than the member for Scarborough-Agincourt ever dreamed as well, I assume. I assume that because all the experts were taken by surprise with this recession, and I hope he won't mind my putting him in the category of expert in this regard.

I would remind the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, though, that in this budget we did make a commitment to a substantial number of jobs. Just to remind members -- and this is not youth employment jobs I'm talking about now; I'm talking about jobs overall, as was the member opposite -- on the Jobs Ontario training fund we made a commitment of about $176 million, which will translate into 10,800 jobs, assuming the private sector picks that up. In a recession, that's going to be tough. We realize that but we very much hope they will take advantage of it. The Jobs Ontario capital fund of $500 million will create about 9,800 jobs. The Jobs Ontario homes fund is going to create about 2,400 jobs this year, a lot more in the next couple of years as the housing starts come on stream, and the base capital spending in all the ministries will support about 67,000 jobs. That totals about 90,000 jobs.

Considering how many jobs have been lost in the private sector, that doesn't take up the gap; I appreciate that. But there is only so much the government can do when the private sector is laying off so many people.

Mr Phillips: I would remind the Treasurer that there are fewer jobs being created this year with those funds than last year and I think it is important that the viewers out there understand that.

But my question to the Treasurer is this: Last year, Treasurer, in your budget, as you recall, you said jobs will begin to be created at significant rates in midyear. That was the summer of last year. That's what you predicted in the budget, and I think many of the people of Ontario held out hope that the Treasurer knew what was going to happen; it didn't happen.

We now have this budget, Treasurer, as you know, and in this budget you say, "Job gains to resume in spring," spring of 1992. You were wrong in last year's budget, as you acknowledged, but the one sense of hope I think the people have is that "Job gains to resume in spring" will come true and that at long last we will see job creation happening at a significant rate.

My simple question to you, Treasurer, is this: You're the one who is most on top of all the statistics and all the knowledge. Can we assume, with some degree of confidence, that this budget that's only a month old is right, that we will see job gains this spring and that I can tell my constituent, when I meet with him, that it's coming, "Be patient; job gains are coming this spring"?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would not want to leave the impression in the minds of members of this assembly or in the minds of people who might be watching or listening to this exchange that I or this government are the only ones who were not accurate last year in the predictions on job creation and the recovery from the recession. Everybody was wrong, because everybody predicted we were going to come out of the recession last year, both in the United States and here in Canada. I don't think you could find an expert who didn't make that prediction, and I think you would have had to look far and wide a couple of months ago when we were drafting the budget to find anyone who didn't say the same thing this year.

I hope we're right. I hope what we say in the budget is correct. But I can tell you that I'm not the one who can flip a switch and cause the recession to end and cause people to have more hope about there being jobs for people out there. It would be nice to be able to do that, but I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is, if nothing else, a realist and knows full well this is not possible to do. All I can say is that the experts are still telling us we're coming out of the recession this year, and we very much hope that that's the case.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also to the Treasurer. It concerns employment prospects for young people in the summer of 1992.

Is the Treasurer aware that one of the Ontario government's principal summer student employment programs, namely the northern Ontario training opportunities program, will offer 1,538 positions this summer as compared to 2,700 summer positions last year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I don't have the numbers with me right at the moment, but I do know there are some programs in which there are going to be fewer students or young people employed and that there are other programs where there are going to be more people employed than last year.

I think the member refers to the northern Ontario training opportunities program. This year we are spending exactly the same amount of money we spent last year, namely $3 million, on that program. If the member would like me to -- I know there are time restrictions in question period -- I could go through the entire list of programs for young people which indicate the kind of commitment this government has made to youth employment, but I'll await his supplementary.

Mr Conway: My point again is that a number of the government's principal summer employment programs are offering fewer jobs this year, when the youth unemployment rate is expected to be at 18%, than were offered last year. According to the government's own information, Nortop will offer some 1,538 positions this year. That's roughly half of what was offered last year.

Contrary to what the Treasurer said here yesterday, the government of Ontario's summer offering at Ontario Place will be down, not up, from last year. I double-checked with Ontario Place. Ontario's job offering at Ontario Place this year will be 537 positions as compared to 672 positions last year. The Environmental Youth Corps is going to be hiring slightly fewer people this summer than last year.

My question to the Treasurer is: How can he justify, in this summer of 1992, major programs like Nortop, like the tree-planting program -- which, I remind him, will offer 1500 fewer positions than last year -- in the face of the kind of student unemployment his own Ministry of Labour is predicting?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to correct the member for Renfrew North on his Ontario Place numbers. I believe he is inaccurate.

Where the member for Renfrew North is making a mistake is in assuming all the jobs at Ontario Place are by the Ontario government or through Ontario Place. For the first time, this year the private sector will be hiring more people at Ontario Place; as a matter of fact, there will be an increase in employment. I know the member doesn't want to be totally preoccupied with Ontario Place, but last year there were 1,272 at Ontario Place and this year there are going to be 1,393, so there is going to be an increase in the jobs at Ontario Place this year.

I would be quite happy to go through the numbers if the member wishes me to, but I can tell the member that with government programs we are offering jobs to about 70,000 young people this summer. That is a major commitment to jobs for youth in this province. Of course with the recession the way it is and with the private sector not hiring the way it used to, it's inevitable that there's going to be high unemployment among youth this summer; there is no question about that.

1400

Mr Conway: I'll tell you, that's creative accounting, taking credit for what the private sector's doing at Ontario Place. On that account the Treasurer is right, but my focus is what the Ontario government itself is or is not doing. The truth is that at Ontario Place, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Ministry of Northern Development, to name but five, the Ontario government's summer offerings, the ones it directly controls, are down, and down substantially, on a number of the major accounts.

I say to him again as a northern minister, what do you say when you go home this weekend to the thousands of young people coming out of the colleges, high schools and universities north of the French River border? What do you say when your own program Nortop is offering roughly half the jobs this year as compared to last year? What do you tell those young people in Nickel Belt who will be told that only one in six of the applicants to Nortop has any hope of getting a job?

The reality remains that the government's own direct summer job creation this year is offering fewer, and in some of the major programs many fewer, jobs than it did last year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: When is the Treasurer or the member for St Andrew-St Patrick going to announce the much-needed new initiatives to give effect to the Premier's heartfelt concern that this is a problem that needs aggressive and immediate action?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think the member for Renfrew North should discount the private sector jobs at Ontario Place.

Mr Conway: I'm not.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, he can't stand in his place and say there's going to be fewer jobs at Ontario Place one minute and then deny the fact that he said it the next minute. There are going to be more jobs for young people at Ontario Place this year than there were last year.

On the matter of young people in my constituency, I appreciate the member's concern about the young people in Nickel Belt riding. I share that concern, as I do for young people in Renfrew North. There is simply no question whatsoever that we are going to be making some moves. When the member for St Andrew-St Patrick reports, that'll become available to members of the House, of course, but I can tell the member for Renfrew North that even when the member for St Andrew-St Patrick brings down her recommendations to government there is still going to be very high youth unemployment in Ontario this summer. We are not out of the recession yet. The private sector is not hiring very many young people this summer and you can't escape the fact that this means high unemployment for young people this summer.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. On April 30 the Ministry of Housing issued a news release to mark the opening of a non-profit housing complex of 11 bachelor apartments in Toronto. According to the numbers in your own release, Madam Minister, each bachelor unit will cost taxpayers $1,924 per month. According to CMHC, the average rent for a bachelor apartment in Toronto is $490 a month. Madam Minister, how can you justify the taxpayers subsidizing bachelor apartments to the tune of $1,924 a month?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd be glad to take a look at the press release to which the member is referring, because I don't know which particular development that might be. But certainly in terms of the allocations we make for non-profit housing, it's not simply a question of subsidization. What we are doing is investing in affordable housing that will long outlast housing which could be available at an affordable rate in the private market were we to provide a subsidy. It is the creation of housing which is going to last in the community and which, over a long period of time, will provide affordable housing that this ministry is interested in moving ahead.

Mrs Marland: I guess the question is who this kind of housing is affordable to. It's certainly not affordable to the people who pay the taxes in this province. I will send the minister a copy of her own press release. It's interesting that she doesn't have such significant figures in her mind. If the annual operating subsidy is $254,000, it's not high math to divide that by 11 units.

In today's Toronto Star I have a couple of examples from the classified ads for rentals of luxury houses and town houses in the same part of Toronto. One says, "Beaches, heart of area, beautifully renovated 3-bedroom, open concept, finished basement, hardwood, fireplace, deck, garage, $1,800 a month plus utilities." Another says, "Danforth-Woodbine, new luxury 3-bedroom, 2 baths, air, deck, skylight, parking, $1,700 plus utilities." The highest rent for a vacant bachelor apartment is $700 a month, which rents a luxury studio with Jacuzzi, air-conditioning and hardwood floors, near Broadview and Queen.

My question is this: If this is what can be rented in the city of Toronto, the existing vacant units, which is far less than the minister is spending on her so-called non-profit housing, does it make sense to you, Madam Minister, to spend tax dollars building new units at a cost of more than double what is existing today in Toronto? The vacancy rate, in case you don't know it, is almost 4% for those bachelor apartments in Toronto today.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm sure the vacancy rate for bachelor apartments at that price is 4% if not higher. Most people who are renting bachelor apartments simply can't afford to pay in that range for a bachelor apartment.

What the member is suggesting is that a decision made in a market like today's, which is, as she will know, a very unusual real estate market, is one that should shape our housing policy here in Ontario for the next period of years. We look upon it very differently. In this housing market, where land prices and construction costs are low, it's a good time to be building. It's a good time to be employing people to build units that will be affordable and available for a long time in the city of Toronto to people who need affordable housing. When the real estate market turns around, I'd like to know where, 20 years from now, you're going to be able to find an apartment that will be exceedingly affordable at $1,900 a month, and that includes land costs, all development costs, plus any rent-geared-to-income subsidies that go into the development.

Mrs Marland: I don't think the minister's hearing what I'm saying. We're saying $1,900 a month for a bachelor. I don't think she understands this question, and she should. She's the Minister of Housing who is making these decisions. There has to be a better way to house people who cannot afford market rents.

In February 1992, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario released a report advocating a system of shelter allowances that would provide direct financial assistance to help needy tenants rent their own apartments at a fraction of the cost of the government building and maintaining non-profit buildings. For $410 million a year, we could help house all the 250,000 Ontarians who paid more than 25% of their income on rent in 1991. The average cost would be $137 a month versus the $1,924 a month this minister is spending on this particular housing project which I've given her as an example.

Madam Minister, I have to ask you again, why are you funding a non-profit program which taxpayers cannot afford and why have you not considered the direct shelter subsidy instead?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Without questioning the figures that have been put forward by FRPO, which I could, let me suggest that the member take a look at what money we do spend on housing in Ontario. We have spent $2.5 billion on shelter allowances through the Ministry of Community and Social Services this year. Through the Ministry of Housing, we spend another $80 million on providing rent subsidies, mostly in the private market.

We think we should have a balanced program in this province. We should not only be pouring money into private dwellings and providing subsidies for people to find places in those private dwellings, but we should be ensuring that now and in the future we are creating as many affordable units as we can, which we will be a benefit to the public in this province for decades to come.

1410

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Attorney General. I'd like the Attorney General to cast his mind back a few years ago, back to a time when he was a research consultant for the federal government. I have a very comprehensive document prepared by one Howard Hampton for the Solicitor General of Canada. It's entitled, "Legalized Gambling: An Overview. 1984."

Mr Attorney General, you are now the chief law officer of the crown of the province of Ontario. You are the Attorney General in a government which is about to bring in casino gambling. My question to you is: Have you shared this very comprehensive paper you prepared with your colleagues?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): It's not often that members of the opposition show an interest in something I wrote when I was a law student working for the federal government. I'm very pleased they are interested in this now.

I did indeed write the document. I spent about two years working on it. I pointed out in the document that while legalized gambling is a fact in provinces like Manitoba, while it is a fact in Great Britain, while it is a fact in Nevada and New Jersey, one of the things which governments have to look at with respect to legalized gambling is the appropriate regulatory responses, the appropriate issues as to how control should be exerted, the appropriate accounting measures to be put in place and who ought to own and operate, the private sector or the public sector, so as to ensure proper protection of the public.

Interjection: He was desperate for a job.

Mr Tilson: Someone said he was desperate for a job. I suppose he was young and foolish and now he's just foolish.

On page 16 of this very comprehensive report, Howard Hampton stated, "Wherever casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized criminal activities."

Mr Attorney General, you wrote this 240-page document. You know the dangers of introducing casino gambling to a province such as this. As the chief law enforcement officer for this province, how can you now support a government policy you admit will lead to organized crime in Ontario?

Hon Mr Hampton: I had occasion to read the document again the other day; I thought it might be a good idea if I read it again. I want to congratulate the member for his rather selective editorial comment on it. I also point out in the document I wrote, and I've pointed it out since then, that where there is an expanding market for gambling in a community or in a society, it may well be that elements of organized crime may show an interest in it because, after all, organized crime is interested in money and there is obviously money involved in any type of legalized or illegal gambling operation.

The fact of the matter is, I also note that the best way to control gambling, whether in North America or in Great Britain, is to have a very clear regulatory scheme. In fact, the most favoured scheme would be to have government operation of the establishments, as is the case in Manitoba.

Mr Tilson: Quite an astounding statement. I think all members of the House are going to find this report most interesting on where the now Attorney General stands on casino gambling. Research consultant Hampton writes, "Virtually every study undertaken points out that casino gambling encourages organized criminal activity." In fact, there is even a section in the report entitled "Legal Gambling for Tax Revenue Purposes and the Law Enforcement Tradeoff."

Attorney General, is this tax grab by the Treasurer worth compromising the people of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Hampton: To reiterate, there is no doubt that with legalized gaming of whatever fashion, whether it be bingos or whether it be lotteries or whether it be casinos, some illegal elements would be interested in those kinds of activities, because there is always money involved. What I point out in the study and what I believe today is that the most appropriate way to deal with any type of illegal interest in legalized gambling is, as I've pointed out, to have a strict regime of control, and I believe the best regime of control is to opt for some type of government operation.

I point out to the members opposite that, for example, in Manitoba, where legalized gambling has been the case since the mid-1970s, the strict control exerted by the government there has not only resulted in benefits to sports associations, cultural associations and community organizations in that province, but has also resulted in a form of legalized gambling that is very strictly controlled and which the people of that province are very comfortable with.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. This week it's come to the attention of all members of the House that a sexual harassment complaint made some time ago against a Belleville judge by an employee was dealt with in what seems to be a rather strange manner. Rather than disciplining the judge, the ministry allowed a special mediation council, made up only of judges, to arrange a mediated settlement in which the judge agreed not to enter certain areas of the courthouse. Clearly until now this situation was not brought to the attention of any minister of the government.

Now that we've all become aware of the situation, I would ask the minister responsible for women's issues whether she is satisfied with this resolution of the harassment charges and the situation still faced by this woman.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Although I am obviously concerned, this is not my area and I refer to the Attorney General.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I wish to correct an inference that was stated in the question. The member infers that somehow some members of the government have authority over judges in this province, that we can discipline judges and that judges are not independent in that respect. I want to correct that portion. In this province and in this country, judges are independent. No minister of the crown can discipline or otherwise direct a judge. If any of us tried to do that, I'm sure the member opposite would be on her feet alleging judicial interference. So I want to make sure that's very clearly perceived.

It's true that an allegation of harassment came forward with respect to a particular incident in a court here in Ontario. The Ministry of the Attorney General did a full investigation of the allegation and forwarded the report that resulted from that investigation to the chief judge, asking that the chief judge look into this and take the matter in hand. It is true that the chief judge then established a committee of judges from outside of that particular locale to look into the issue. They interviewed the complainant, and my understanding is that the complainant agreed to a settlement whereby the movements of that particular judge would be restricted.

1420

Mrs McLeod: I was very careful in attempting not to be seen to be laying blame on the government with my question. I am seeking a response to charges of sexual harassment out of a concern for the way in which this has been handled and the way in which in fact it might be handled in future cases. I'm looking for a response from a government that I believe to be committed to zero tolerance of sexual harassment.

At the very least, it's my understanding that the ministry advised the woman in question that it would take much too long for her to go through the official Ontario Judicial Council and that's why this special mediation body was set up. I'm sure both ministers are as concerned as I am about what I believe to be an unsatisfactory resolution of the situation. The question now is, what will we do about it?

I ask the minister whether he will undertake to carry out, at the very least, an internal inquiry as to the way in which this situation was handled, with a view to determining whether any other steps are needed, whether he will report publicly on that inquiry and, finally, whether he will advocate for changes to the procedures involving sexual harassment cases against the judiciary so that we can ensure this does not happen again.

Hon Mr Hampton: I thank the member that this focus has now been brought to the question, because I think it is indeed a very serious issue. We have known, and I think previous governments have known, that the disciplinary measures available to the judicial council under the Courts of Justice Act in Ontario are not satisfactory. When we became the government we initiated a preliminary consultation with some members of the judiciary and within the ministry to look at this issue. As we speak, a consultation is now going on with the judiciary in this province and with those client groups that are very concerned, not only about this type of issue, which is very serious indeed, but with other issues involving the discipline of judges and regulating the conduct of judges.

I'm happy to say that this kind of issue is being consulted about and I'm hopeful that very early in the fall we will be able to return to the Legislature with comprehensive legislation dealing with the makeup of the judicial council, not only the judges who should be on it but lay membership of the judicial council, disciplinary standards, review standards and a speedup of the process so that many of the things that have happened behind closed doors in the past will now be open to the public and these kinds of issues will be dealt with appropriately.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Treasurer. This morning the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which is the recognized voice of business in the province with 65,000 members, released a document entitled An Agenda for Renewal, not to be confused with An Agenda for People, which we've all learned to disregard in this Legislature. It was called An Agenda for Renewal. I want to read the press release. Pat Palmer said, "This document is intended to provide a direction for economic recovery, something which has been obviously lacking."

Casey Stengel said that ability is the art of getting credit for all the home runs that are hit by somebody else. Mr Treasurer, you can take credit for this, you can take the credit for some of the good recommendations in here. All we're asking you is, when are you going to implement some of the recommendations that are coming forward from groups such as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce? When are you going to act on those recommendations?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It sure would be helpful if the member were more specific in what recommendations he's referring to. I did read with some interest, however, the material from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, because we do take its views seriously. We don't always do everything they request us to do, but there are some things in the document that I thought were very good, I must say.

On page 8 of their document they make the following recommendations as to what Ontario requires:

"Innovative programs which assist in bridging the gap in understanding between business and government -- such as increased personnel exchanges and collaborative programs." I couldn't agree more.

"Government priority on development, maintenance and upgrading of basic human and physical infrastructure." That's exactly what our major commitment to capital and essential public services, which we brought down in this budget, means.

"Leadership from the Ontario government in encouraging the establishment of national programs and standards, and the reduction of wasteful overlap and duplication of programs between different levels of government." I couldn't agree more, both with the federal government and with the disentanglement process that's going on now. between the province and the municipalities.

"An ongoing public examination of demands made by society on public sector services and promotion of public awareness of the real costs of these services." I agree with that.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: Finally, "Continuing elimination of inefficiencies in the public sector." We're working on that as well. So they make some very, very good recommendations. Some of them we are already doing; others we will be working towards.

Mr Carr: The problem is that this has been an Ontario-led recession; 80% of the jobs that have been lost have been in the province of Ontario as a direct result of the policies of the provincial government you're responsible for. I want to also tell you exactly what happened: 80% of the job loss is the direct responsibility of this government, because it has been an Ontario-led recession.

The president of the chamber said today -- and I quote, because I was at that press conference -- "Talking to this government is like talking to the wall." That's what he said this morning. He said, "It is frustrating going around and listening to the hearings on the Ontario labour relations amendments." His words were, "We were rebuffed during those hearings." He also said that during the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board hearings, "This government was only interested in getting the hearings completed, not in listening to what they had to say."

The Treasurer may like some of the things that are in here. What this chamber of commerce is saying is that we need some action. The other day I gave you some proposals, about four pages we talked about, they put forward in January and February that were adopted by the chamber of commerce as what it would like to do. They have summarized this in one document.

I would like to be specific. Would you indicate today what specific action you are taking, not the fact that you're listening and you like this on page 8 and page 9. When are you going to implement something? If you want to be specific about it, the number one thing on page 7 is to allow retailers to have freedom of choice to open seven days a week. He in fact said that was endorsed unanimously.

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

Mr Carr: Could you take one specific item, and let's be specific about this one: When will we be able to see some legislation which will do what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce wants in Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I've been in the assembly for a considerable length of time, and I really do try to take suggestions from the opposition very seriously. But I want to tell you, that member makes it very difficult to take him seriously when he stands in his place and says that the policies of this government -- we've been in office for a year and a half now -- have led to the recession in Ontario. Absolutely ridiculous. Absolute nonsense. There's not a serious-minded, objective person anywhere in this country or elsewhere who would make such a ridiculous claim.

My final word of advice --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: My final comment is, if the member for Oakville South wishes to be taken seriously by this government, I would urge him to put aside his petty, silly partisanship and ask more serious questions in this assembly.

1430

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Mr Minister, recently the people of St Catharines and the Niagara region had their worst fears realized. There's a major reduction in staff at General Motors, the Niagara region's largest employer. Among over 2,300 who will lose their jobs, there are approximately 100 apprentices who are learning a trade. Can the minister please tell me and these 100 apprentices what options they have so they can complete their apprenticeships?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): The member for Lincoln has on many occasions approached many of us with respect to the problems at General Motors in St Catharines, and this is a serious issue he raises today.

The central problem of apprenticeship, of course, is that to be an apprentice you have to have a job, and therefore there is a major problem in maintaining apprenticeships when jobs disappear. However, this is the only province in the whole country that has something known as a laid-off apprenticeship program, which we have had working for the past year and which continues. It is based upon the notion that there are at least some things you can do: first, that you can counsel apprentices with regard to their alternatives; second, that you can provide some simulated or alternative workplace settings in which to continue some of their training, and third, their education portions can be moved forward or done in sequence.

All those options are available for the apprentices at General Motors. There are, as I understand it, 32 who have lost their positions formally and 22 who will certainly be on long-term layoff. They are being assisted at this time by the Ministry of Skills Development with regard to the various options I just described.

Mr Hansen: Mr Minister, what are you doing to ensure that the apprentices don't lose the credits for the work they've already put into their apprenticeships but which they may not be able to complete before being laid off? The thing is that a man or woman has already worked three years in an apprenticeship, and then all of a sudden there isn't an apprenticeship to go into. Are they going to lose and have to start all over with a new employer?

Hon Mr Allen: Apart from trying to find alternative employers who will carry on from where they left off, we have an agreement with General Motors that it will sign off clearly for the hours that have been performed to date in the apprenticeship. They will be able to carry that documented evidence to another employer or carry it forward as evidence of training completed when they're searching for employment.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, you're very well aware, as we all are, that the month of June is just around the corner, as is the summer, and with that the promise of hotter and more humid weather.

However, after reading the Toronto Star this past weekend, I was concerned that the air quality index numbers for places such as Etobicoke and Burlington were as high as 46, Niagara Falls had a reading of 45 and Mississauga, St Catharines, Guelph and Hamilton all had reported readings of 43. To top it all off, Minister, the people residing in west Toronto and the city of York suffered a smog reading of 49.

Minister, you of course are well aware that the acceptable level, as set by your ministry, has been at the air quality index of 32. Considering that these readings were taken on the 22nd of May of this year and that the hot weather months are still to come, what assurances can you give to this House and the people of Ontario that you and your ministry are doing everything you possibly can to deal with air quality and air pollution issues in this province at this time?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I certainly acknowledge the concern that the member and very many people in this province have expressed as we approach the summer weather. The member will know that the moves undertaken by his government continued with us, to deal with gasoline handling and to make mandatory the regulation that previously had only been on for certain periods of the year, have done something to deal with this issue.

I think there is a much broader concern, and that is the whole question of vehicle emissions. We have continued our work with the federal government to look at what we can do about what's known as NOx/VOCs emissions and coming up with specific strategies and programs to deal with that.

I was very glad last week about such a simple thing as Bike to Work Week. I don't know whether there were any particular differences in the levels of emissions, but there have in fact been occasions, when people and individuals made changes in their own personal habits, where they affected the air quality for all of us.

There is no one simple, magic answer to this, just as there isn't to so many other problems, but by a variety of strategies and a variety of approaches I think we can all make a difference.

Mr McClelland: You're indeed correct, Madam Minister, that we can all make a difference and that people across this province can do what they can do. But you are the Minister of the Environment. You have within your legislative authority the power to do a number of things.

In answer to my first question, you admitted that what you have done is to continue to do many of the things your predecessor, the member for St Catharines, initiated. Quite frankly, you haven't really taken any new initiatives in terms of air quality at all. Evidence of this incompetence, I think, can be seen directly within your own ministry in terms of what's happening with motor vehicle emissions, the very issue you raise. I've learned that the vehicle emissions test centre in your ministry has been reduced in size from the seven inspectors who were there in 1988-89 to the present number of one. There's currently one inspector employed there full-time.

I recall very vividly, Madam Minister, that while you were in opposition you were outraged by the fact that there were seven inspectors and only seven. That number has now been reduced to one. Further to this, although I'm not terribly surprised, the budget for the air resources branch of your ministry has been slashed by nearly $850,000 from last year's level. How can you proclaim, Minister, with the rising air pollution index counts throughout this province, when you have basically been inactive on that front? Does cutting the amount of money and reducing to one inspector evidence your commitment to this particular issue? In large part it's due to poorly equipped and regulated motor vehicles and trucks. The fact of the matter is, you now have one inspector and you've cut the budget. Is that evidence of your commitment to this issue?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is quite correct in remembering that the question of the vehicle emissions test centre was one I was very concerned about in opposition. Let me assure him I am still very concerned about that particular issue. But let me remind him, my concern in opposition was that there was one centre in Toronto and that wasn't capable of dealing with vehicles that were having inappropriate emissions around the province, and therefore we needed a better and more comprehensive approach.

I am delighted to be able to say to him that's exactly the kind of strategy that, in consultation with the Minister of Transportation, our ministry is working on and is ready to put in place, because it is not effective enough to have one centre that tests a certain number of cars a year in one city across the province. You have to look at issues in a more integrated and comprehensive way. That's precisely what we're doing.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I hope we get a better answer from the Minister of the Environment than she's offering anyone else. We haven't had answers since she was in opposition. It's time you got down to the real job of managing the environment as best you can.

Some two years ago the Ontario Treasurer announced a plan to establish a provincial water and sewer corporation. This corporation was initiated to address some of the very serious issues related to the deteriorating sewer systems in Ontario. James MacLaren, the chairman designate of this corporation, has stated that the sewer and water systems need immediate attention to avert an environmental crisis.

For 18 months you have chosen to ignore the severity of the situation. Of course, you've had the garbage situation, so in many ways you're known as the minister of garbage, but there are other factors that have to be looked at. Water and sewers is one of the main ones. Minister, what is the present status of the sewer and water corporation, and, on a broader spectrum, what are your immediate plans for improving the province's sewer and water treatment systems?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me deal with the broader issue the member has raised in the latter part of his question. Let me remind him there has been extensive expenditure by this government last year in the budget with respect to job creation programs and money that went into replacement of that infrastructure in the announcement by the Treasurer in this year's budget of a capital funding program to deal with an infrastructure across this province that has been neglected for 10 years and for much before 10 years ago.

Water is a very critical requirement that has to be looked at both from the point of view of infrastructure and from the kind of work that is being done by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to look at water efficiency and to look at full-cost accounting. Just as with energy, if you save the energy you don't have to build generating stations; if you save the water, you don't have to replace water treatment plants.

With respect to the specific initiative taken by the previous Treasurer to establish a corporation to look at sewers and water, that, as I have said before, is something this government has considered, is continuing to consider and has not yet made a determination about, but that does not mean we have not acted to deal with infrastructure and water issues.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): That answer is simply not acceptable. The money is not being allocated and it's not going to the municipalities. A number of municipalities in my riding have spoken to me regarding problems they have. The town of Fergus, for example, has been told it cannot receive funding for an elevated water tank until some decision is reached on the corporation. The town has spent two years looking for assistance. The village of Clifford and the town of Mount Forest also have put forward several applications to your ministry looking for information on this issue.

These are not issues of expanding services. It is a matter of maintaining services at a minimum level that is needed in many communities. Minister, what assurances can you give this House that you will be providing assistance to maintain an appropriate level of service for sewers and water for municipalities in Ontario?

1440

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me correct the impression left by the beginning of the member's question, which is that if you set up a corporation that is a licence to print money and that every requirement can be met. That is not going to be the case no matter what mechanism is ultimately decided upon to fund the infrastructure of this province.

If anybody told a municipality in the member's riding that grants were not available pending the establishment of a sewer and water corporation, it was certainly not somebody within the Ministry of the Environment. Our ministry has continued the capital funding, has had from the Treasurer a generous allocation for capital funding, and is continuing the practice of setting priorities and looking at what needs must be met and can be met from the allocation each year. That does not, unfortunately, mean that we can grant every request by every municipality. I wish we could, but unfortunately no government can in fact do that. So we are ranking those requests, looking at the environmental needs and also working with the municipalities to make sure that we no longer undervalue this very precious resource and begin to get to a user-pay system whereby the users of the water begin to pay some of the full costs of both the provision and the treatment of that water.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I put forward a resolution this morning for a day of appreciation for ambulance officers. I'm quite glad to say it was accepted by both sides of the House.

I also understand that we have roughly 150 ambulance officers here today to rally us for support of the Swimmer recommendations. I'm really glad to see them in the public galleries today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mr Morrow: In 1991 the Minister of Health appointed Professor Swimmer of Carleton University to head an inquiry into the emergency medical services of Ontario. All aspects of ambulance services were thoroughly examined -- issues of service to the public, structure and governance of the system. The report was provided to the minister in December. It said, "A provincial commission reporting to and funded by the Ministry of Health represents the best long-term structure for the Ontario ambulance service."

My question to the minister is: Are you planning to implement the recommendations of the emergency medical services review, the Swimmer report, and when does she expect to introduce legislation to that effect?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I thank the member for his interest in this issue, for the resolution he sponsored earlier today in the Legislature, and join with him in welcoming the representatives of the profession who are here today. I understand that they have been going from office to office, meeting with members of this Legislative Assembly, to put forward their points of view and concerns with respect to the ambulance service in this province and their beliefs about the way in which it should be restructured.

The specific recommendations of the Swimmer report -- there were some 109 of them; they're very complex, very thorough, and I should take this opportunity to thank the people who participated in that task force and developed them -- we have asked Mr Swimmer to take back out to the community to get response from district health councils, hospitals, nursing homes, consumers, workers, private operators, the whole gamut across the community as to how they feel about those recommendations and how they feel they are workable.

I expect to receive the report back from Mr Swimmer. Whether he will amend any of those recommendations I'm not aware of yet. Once I receive that I'll be in a position to make a determination about what the government will do with those recommendations. I assure the member that I'll let him and other members of the Legislative Assembly know. I'll also have the opportunity to meet directly with the ambulance officers this afternoon.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past weeks we have continued to hear more and more shocking allegations about the situation of the former Grandview Training School for Girls. A former Minister of Correctional Services has made accusations of a 15-year coverup. The former chief psychologist has voluntarily left his teaching duties at the University of Ottawa. A member of this province's executive council has resigned his position over the same matter. There have been five unexplained deaths of inmates at Grandview school, deaths which are buried in the fine print of the Ministry of Correctional Services' annual reports. We've heard reports of former inmates of Grandview committing suicide.

The public is losing confidence in this process. The public is losing confidence in this investigation, Mr Minister. Do you receive regular updates on this important investigation? If you do so, will you please tell the House about them? This has been going on for more than a year. Mr Minister, my question to you today, in addition to the updates question, is are you willing to upgrade this to the status of a public provincial inquiry, as the victims, many members of the community and, indeed, many members of this Legislature think it should be?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): I personally share the concerns of the member opposite and I can well understand her anxiousness, along with the anxiousness of many others, to have answers to these questions that are outstanding, surrounding events that occurred so very long ago. The investigation is ongoing. I believe it will in due time produce the answers the member seeks, and hopefully they can be shared with all who wish to be aware of them and have knowledge of them. If, for some reason, it becomes apparent, or I believe the investigation is not being done in an appropriate or timely way, I will consider alternative measures, but I think that is somewhat premature at the moment.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe my privileges as a member have been breached. Yesterday in this House I asked the Minister of Culture and Communications to explain why she had displayed such a lack of culture and communication with regard to funding for the Art Gallery of Ontario. The minister told the Stratford Beacon Herald she would recommend to treasury board that no extra funding be provided to the AGO. When I asked the minister why she had not been courteous enough to first inform the AGO, she claimed the newspaper had misquoted her.

I have since spoken to the reporter at that newspaper, Mr Brian Schypulla, and he stands by his story, and why shouldn't he? As the minister well knows, the interview was conducted in person, in her riding and was tape-recorded. The minister should also know that her constituency office was in touch with the newspaper earlier this week and made no mention of any misquote.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Mississauga South take her seat for a moment. You rose on a point of privilege. To this point, I cannot detect what privilege you believe has been lost. If you would --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would you quickly get to that.

Mrs Marland: For the minister to hide her transgressions behind such a typical political excuse is an obvious attempt to cast aspersions on the reporter and on the newspaper itself. Perhaps the minister was having a difficult day in the House. Perhaps she was just tired and lost it. I believe the minister should apologize to this Legislature and to the reporter involved.

The Speaker: I think the member will know that there is quite clearly a difference of opinion with respect to an issue which was raised in this chamber the other day. But what she refers to does not indicate any particular --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the members to come to order. What she indicates does not reveal any particular privilege she has lost.

1450

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, yesterday when we were responding to statements, on at least a couple of occasions you brought to order my colleague the member for Ottawa West as he was attempting to respond to the statement by the Attorney General. He was introducing at that point some information with respect to his concern that while a particular move had been brought on, finally, it had taken too long and he wished that something would be done in a timely fashion to deal with the issue of sexual harassment, which was again raised in a question by my leader today.

You had asserted, Mr Speaker, that as a result of precedent, all responses with respect to ministerial statements must in fact respond to the nature of the statement itself, which really confined the response of my colleague to the essence of the statement by the Attorney General. In fairness, Mr Speaker, I note that you did distribute -- or at least it has been distributed -- through Legislative Assembly precedent an interjection by the then Speaker in December 1986, the statement: "Order. I remind all members that the time for responses is to respond directly to statements made by ministers."

In essence, that was in the earliest stages of the then new rules. It has come to my attention, because I was a minister during the period following that, that when statements were made by ministers the tradition has arisen with the new rules of allowing free flow of interjection of any information with respect to a ministry when a minister has made a statement.

In fact, I went back and looked for a couple of examples. One I remembered quite vividly, when the Minister of Education in those days, Mr Ward, was accosted with some degree of skill by the member for Scarborough North, Mr Johnston. I bring this issue to your attention because that intervention was on April 5, 1988, far removed from the 1986 Speaker's note of the day. I also bring to your attention an event of December 29, 1987, wherein Mr Riddell had made a statement as Minister of Agriculture and Food, and the response by Mr Wildman as the then opposition critic. Both those gentlemen, Mr Johnston and Mr Wildman -- I'm just reading off the paper; I can't remember what their ridings were. I guess Johnston Scarborough North and Algoma for Mr Wildman.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer): Scarborough West.

Mr Elston: Scarborough West, I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Mr Treasurer. You're spot on, as usual.

Both those members on those dates, well after the 1986 intervention by the Speaker of the day, were allowed to carry on with some degree of skill, as they are noted for, with responses which moved well beyond the essence of the statements of those ministers.

I therefore respectfully submit that you again look to the issue of precedent and tradition and that you allow the members of the opposition parties to respond much more freely than you allowed the member for Ottawa West to respond yesterday to the statement. I will send these to you just as examples. I stopped at these because I recall them as events. I'm prepared to assist in whatever way I can to find other days in which a very liberal latitude was allowed by the Speaker of the day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Two points: As always, I'm more than pleased to take a look at points of order that have been brought to my attention, and, as always, the member for Bruce is most helpful. He has already done some research, and I will do some more. I will be reporting back to the House at a later date. Again, I thank the member for his assistance and his interest in these matters.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 121

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I have two motions that are substantive motions, but there is agreement by the three House leaders that I can proceed with these motions during routine motions, so I seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Cooke moved that all amendments proposed to Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, be tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly following routine proceedings today and be deemed to have been moved. Any divisions required during committee of the whole consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Monday, June 1, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 74 AND COMPANION LEGISLATION

Mr Cooke moved that the standing committee on administration of justice shall meet to consider Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons; Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care; Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment, and Bill 110, An Act to amend Certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1991, and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1991, as follows:

Two sessional weeks to receive public submissions at meetings in Toronto; two summer sessional weeks to receive public submissions in Toronto and two summer sessional weeks for clause-by-clause consideration. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm on the day prior to the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bills clause by clause. At 4 pm on the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bills clause by clause, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt their proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bills and any amendments thereto. The committee shall report the bills to the House on the first available day in the fall meeting period that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bills on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on administration of justice, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which questions shall be decided without amendment or debate.

That two sessional days be allotted to further consideration of the bills in the committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bills shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 4 pm on the last sessional day on which the bills are considered in the committee of the whole House. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bills in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on the last sessional day that the bills are to be considered in the committee of the whole House. At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bills and any amendments thereto and report the bills to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bills. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bills without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division in the House relating to any proceedings on the bills, the division bell shall be limited to 15 minutes.

That this resolution be subject to change upon the agreement of the three House leaders.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Carleton.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd just like to say two words about this. I want to point out to the House that both opposition parties have been in complete concert, in a most expeditious and in as constructive a manner as possible, in dealing with two very difficult bills. I want to make it clear to the public of Ontario that in spite of government sponsored, spin-doctored stories that this place was grinding to a halt, when there is important legislation in front of us, opposition parties do not just oppose for the sake of opposing. We oppose for the sake of making the legislation better, and in these cases we have volunteered to restrict our ability, in committee of the whole House and on third reading, to delay the matter. We have done that and we have consented to that voluntarily. I want to make it absolutely clear to this Legislative Assembly that we are in concert with this motion and have voluntarily agreed to it.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

1500

PETITIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

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

"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 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."

Mr Speaker, it's signed by 46 individuals, and I have affixed my name to both petitions.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition here signed by 75 people which calls on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in particular the Ministry of Housing to make an amendment to Bill 121, the Rent Control Act, to establish the rights of tenants to terminate their parking space agreements upon proper notice to their landlords.

I also have affixed my name to this petition in endorsement.

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 to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I have signed my name to those, and it's been signed by members of Acme Building and Construction Ltd.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have approximately 500 names here to add to the many petitions sent here from the London-Middlesex area.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted, unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex patently not being economically viable;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

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

I have also affixed my signature.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): This is a petition signed by 43 constituents. It states:

"Whereas, we, the congregation of Grace United Church, Niagara-on-the-Lake, strongly oppose the Bob Rae government's plan to legalize casino gambling;

"We, the undersigned, ask the government to abandon such plans for legalized gambling."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by members of Corunna Fabricating Services Ltd, and it is with respect to instructing the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments.

I have signed my name to those.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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 to the Labour Relations Act will have on investments and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

Those petitions have been signed by individuals of Edwards; the Construction Association of Thunder Bay; Dover Industries Ltd; Konvey; Experimental Tool and Manufacturing Ltd; J. J. McGuire General Contractors; York Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Ltd; Bibby-Ste Croix Foundries Inc; Advance Engineering Co; KemSam Inc; Regent Steel Industries Ltd; Triodetic Building Products Ltd; the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association;

Zan-Dall Construction Ltd; Satellite Truss Ltd; Mitchell Construction; the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association; Kara Consultants Inc; Alpha Vico Inc; Milne and Nicholls Ltd; Niagara Elevator Inc; Ken Douglas Painting and Decorating Ltd; JCJ Contracting; the Niagara Construction Association; Gor-Don Metal Products and Services Inc; Samuel-Kent, a division of the Kent steel division of Samuel, Son and Co Ltd;

Culliton Brothers Ltd; Aldor Builders Ltd; Graff Diamond, contracting division; Standard Tube Canada Inc; Servocraft Ltd; Melloul-Blamey Construction Ltd; Vanvark Electric Ltd; All Systems Communications Inc; Steed and Evans Ltd; Buxton and Dawe Ltd; Teme Engineering Ltd; Reinforcing Steel Institute of Ontario; Wellington Guarantee, which is a division of Wellington Insurance Co; Presot Painting and Drywall Ltd; Plumbing Sales Ltd; Kenmore;

Pre-Eng Contracting Ltd; Ira Mcdonald Construction Ltd; Moffatt and Powell Building Centres; ES Fox Ltd; Boss-Tech; Bird Construction Co; Architectural Hardware Ltd; Seeback and Sons Inc; Centra Gas; Griffin; Bennett and Wright Ltd; Vanson Construction Ltd; Glamour Line; Pigott Contractors Inc; CBM Elevator Co Ltd; Equipment World Inc; Lualco Steel Erection and Mechanical Services Ltd; CR Associates; SK Sheet Metal Ltd; Mountainview Properties;

UMA Engineering Ltd; Berkim Construction Inc; Decoral Painting Ltd; Airguard; IC Insulcana Contracting Ltd; Canal Marine; the Ontario Electrical Construction Co; Karson Kartage and Konstruction Ltd; Nellis Construction Ltd; the Toronto Construction Association and the Mississauga Construction Association; Palmex Interior Systems Ltd; Hanco Inc; Menkes Developments Inc;

Ronson Paving and Construction; Canadian Glass;

Hacio Ltd, Mechanical Contractors; Standard Pressure Pipe; Doran Contractors Ltd; Armoured Floor Co Ltd; Branair; Mueller-Hein Corp; 574246 Ontario Ltd; BBS Construction (Ontario) Ltd; Charles H Presley; Norenburg Construction Ltd; Choctaw Construction Co Ltd; C&C Plumbing and Excavating Ltd; Ottawa GSB Construction Co Ltd;

B. J. Normand Ltd; Acc-Par Systems Ltd; Fendor Glass and Aluminum Ltd; Comac Construction Ltd; Cutting International Ltd; FuelMaker Corp; Engelhard; Charter Building Co; RW Packaging (Int'l) Inc; Franceschini Bros Aggregates Ltd; Toronto Stamp; Hull-Thomson Ltd; Eldon Rubbermaid; Canadian Manufacturers' Association; A. Schulman Canada Ltd; Art Brennan Exc. Ltd; Rivett Architectural Hardware Ltd and Martin-Stewart Contracting Ltd.

I have affixed my signature thereto.

1510

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I rise to present a petition which exceeds in number 3,000 people in this province.

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

"Whereas the installation of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario's citizens;

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

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

"Whereas there is no compelling reason why Ontario should have bilingual highway signs at all;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing English highway signs with bilingual English/French signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately, any and all provision under Bill 8 notwithstanding."

This petition is also supported by a resolution of the mayor and members of council of the city of Mississauga.

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."

These petitions have been signed by individuals of Shrader Companies, S. A. Armstrong Ltd, Woodall Construction Co Ltd, Dawn Mechanical Sales, the staff at Dynasty Contractors Ltd, Simplex International Time Equipment Co Ltd, Bertrand Faure Ltd, ABI Leisure Products and Advanced Monobloc.

I have signed my name to these petitions.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Morrow from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee's 19th report, 1991, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Motion agreed to.

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

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. The 19th report highlights some of the achievements of the Ombudsman in her annual reports of 1989-90 and 1990-91. It also comments on some of the progress that's been made in implementing some of the recommendations.

I would also like to say that this report was unanimously accepted by all three parties. I'd like to thank the members, the clerk, Franco Carrozza, and Paul Murray, our researcher.

On motion by Mr Morrow, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA CONSULTATION POPULAIRE À L'ÉCHELLE PROVINCIALE

Mr Turnbull moved first reading of Bill 30, An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest / Loi visant à obtenir l'opinion du public sur des questions d'intérêt provincial.

Motion agreed to.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The purpose of this bill is to enable an Ontario elector and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to obtain a referendum on a question that is of general application to Ontario and that is within the Ontario legislative authority.

An elector who wishes a referendum must submit the question to the chief election officer on a petition containing the signatures of at least 15% of Ontario electors. The chief election officer will review every petition to ensure that it meets certain procedural and substantive requirements, and must place the question on a ballot for the general election to elect the members of the Legislative Assembly.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that a referendum be held at a general election to elect members of the Legislative Assembly. The order must set out the day of the general election on which the referendum will be held and must set out the question that is to be placed on the ballot for that election.

If at least 50% of the electors vote in the referendum and if 60% of those electors vote the same way, then a minister of the crown is required to introduce a bill in the Legislative Assembly that proposes to implement the results of the referendum. Mechanisms are included in the act to ensure that the bill is called for second reading if it passes first reading. The act does not require the minister or any other member of the Legislative Assembly to vote on the bill in any particular way.

INCOME TAX AND ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU ET L'ALLÉGEMENT DE L'IMPÔT FONCIER DES RETRAITÉS DE L'ONTARIO

Ms Wark-Martyn moved Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide an Income Tax Credit to Seniors and to phase out grants under the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, prévoyant des crédits d'impôt sur le revenu pour les personnes agées et visant à éliminer progressivement les subventions prévues par la Loi sur l'allégement de l'impôt foncier des retraités de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

1525

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 37

Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

Nays -- 15

Arnott, Bradley, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Elston, Jordan, Marland, Murdoch (Grey), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you have a few remarks?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr Speaker. This bill puts into place proposals in the Treasurer's budget of April 30. Lower-income seniors will benefit from the new property and sales tax credits which will replace the former grant structure. I would like to add that an amendment to a regulation under the Income Tax Act will also enrich the Ontario tax reduction program, ensuring that lower-income people do not have to pay any more taxes. The bill also increases the personal income tax rate and the surtax rate, and there are technical amendments to bring the federal and provincial income tax acts in line, as required under the tax collection agreement between Ontario and the federal government.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know we've had some confusion about the conducting of business around this place and about what is happening and not happening and what has been introduced and not introduced. But the government is now bringing in its first assault on the universality of programs in support of seniors in this province and it has not provided us with the ministerial statement which usually announces the introduction of a very important piece of business. That has meant we were unable to prepare ourselves for comment on the bill on the first day, which is not always allowed, but is becoming largely a tradition in this place.

1530

Interjections.

Mr Elston: I regret that I am unable to be heard because of those people over there, but I really wish to register in the strongest terms possible that this is a first shot at the universality of programs. This a akin to the type of invasion that occurred under the auspices of Brian Mulroney and the federal people in Ottawa, and it seems to me that we should have been allowed the ability to respond to a statement by the minister. Now it seems to me that we are forced, I admit with thinning numbers, to defend the proposition of universality in this program.

I only rise to say on the point of order that the traditions of this House have once again been trampled under the feet of the stampeding horde.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please take your seat. This is not a point of order. Your complaint has been lodged.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order as well on this situation that's developed in the House today and it has to do with the breakdown in communications that is taking place.

First of all, I'm really proud of the fact that our caucus stood up to try to block this bill. It is one of those disgusting moves being taken by this government that is an abuse of seniors. They came along on a Thursday afternoon and tried to slip it through. It's wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. This is not a point of order.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, is it not against the rules of this House that there at least be some kind of public statement by the minister before she --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: Is it not an abuse of power? You guys are going back on your word.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair always has to make sure that I am given an opportunity to listen entirely to what is being said. Obviously, in this case there is no point of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

Resuming 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): Perhaps I should read the resolution again: That all amendments proposed to Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, be tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly following routine proceedings today and be deemed to have been moved. Any divisions required during committee of the whole consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Monday, June 1, 1992.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): If I could just add to that, I understand there's an agreement among parties that we will more or less split time, calling upon assistance from the Chair's table to make sure that there is a more or less equal allocation of time among parties, and there is also an informal agreement that members may speak to one part of the bill or another, amendment or clause, and it doesn't necessarily have to come in order.

The Chair: Agreed.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Chair: If the table is going to do it more or less, could we have more rather than less?

The Chair: Are there any members who wish to speak?

Ms Poole: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to amendments to the bill. The amendments I wish to address at this particular time are extremely important, and those are the amendments regarding energy and water conservation.

The government has tabled an amendment to section 15. They have just added one word to the capital expenditures list. They have said that not only are energy conservation capital expenditures allowable and eligible but also water conservation. Unfortunately, this does not address the problems relating to energy conservation in this bill.

During the Bill 121 general government hearings, the Liberal caucus tabled an amendment which would encourage and give an incentive to landlords to do energy conservation, because we feel as the bill is currently drafted that landlords will not only not do energy conservation but there is actually a disincentive to do energy conservation. The government in effect has said to landlords: "If you want to do energy conservation or water conservation now, you have to go through the hoops of rent control. You have to justify that the 2% was spent on capital. You have to risk having your rent reduced because of inadequate maintenance in another category."

What you get at the end of the day is the ability of tenants to make an application for a rent decrease due to the cost savings. So I say to the minister, what incentive is there for landlords to go to all the trouble and hassle of going through this very, very complicated rent review system, not getting the full benefit of all the money that they've had to put in to buy these capital replacements, when at the end of the day the tenants can actually make application to reduce the extraordinary operating cost portion in the rent?

I want to put before the minister an example which was brought to me by my colleague the critic for the Environment, Carman McClelland, who's from Brampton North. He told me about the situation of two very major companies -- one, Caterpillar, and the other was a Japanese company -- that have an agreement in principle to bring in and build in Canada cogeneration systems to put into apartment buildings, which would significantly reduce the energy costs for those buildings. This project was to give in Canada 30,000 jobs, a very major project, you will see.

1540

Their plan was not to have the landlords go for a rent increase due to the capital cost of putting the machinery in. Their plan, with the regulations put in place by the federal government, was that landlords would write it off and their investors would write it off as a capital loss and use the income tax system to retrieve some of that money back. They weren't going to give tenants a rent increase; they were going to put in these conservation methods.

However, the problem is that with this legislation, the tenant could then make an application for an extraordinary operating decrease under section 24 and realize all the cost savings. What incentive is that? The tenants have not paid any rent increase and yet the tenants will get a rent decrease and the people who paid the money in as an investment will not get the cost saving and therefore not be able to recoup the rest of their investment. This is something the act does not address at all.

The Liberal caucus has put in an amendment to section 24 in order to rectify this problem. But I can tell you, Madam Minister, that the principals in this agreement have said, on seeing Bill 121, if it goes through in its current form, that the contracts will not be signed and the agreement in principle is voided: 30,000 jobs lost, conservation methods that would have been put in, not at the cost of the tenants but put forward by investors, who would then recoup it through cost saving in the future and through tax provisions by the federal government, which were amended, I think, two weeks ago. The federal government brought in amendments to its regulations so that investors could do this to encourage energy conservation.

The bottom line we face here is that in this particular situation it's a lose-lose scenario for everybody: for the tenants, for the landlords, for the investors, for the people who would have had jobs, for the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment, which are encouraging energy conservation, and all because this government refused to bend on this particular section.

I would also like to talk about some of the concerns the natural gas industry has. First of all, I think we can all agree that energy efficiency and conservation make not only economic sense; they make social and environmental sense. On the environmental side, energy efficiency and conservation lead to reduced atmospheric emissions and a cleaner environment. As well, energy improvements in Ontario will reduce the demand for electricity and assist Ontario Hydro in meeting the demand-side management objectives.

I think we're all agreed that energy conservation is a good thing from all aspects. However, the natural gas industry is deeply concerned about Bill 121 because the natural gas industry believes that property owners and managers may decide not to make a capital investment to replace or upgrade their energy facilities until just prior to the end of their life expectancy. In addition, they will likely invest in less efficient equipment, which may require a lower capital cost but result in higher operating costs and obviously less efficiency. Third, investment in energy efficiency and conservation improvements create much-needed employment in the construction, manufacturing and building service industries. Bill 121 would inhibit these investments being made.

Now the interesting thing is how the natural gas industry's awareness of Bill 121 came about. They were putting all their time and energy into Bill 118, which is a piece of energy legislation right now before this Legislature. Then around five or six weeks ago, when they were talking to people in the industry and people who were manufacturing the fuel substitution and people in the apartment industry, they suddenly became aware of Bill 121, whose objectives are diametrically opposed to the provision of energy efficiency and energy conservation.

I'd like to read into the record a letter from the Ontario Natural Gas Association signed by the president, Paul Pinnington. Madam Minister, I presume you've seen this letter by now because it is dated May 15. The letter was addressed to the minister.

"I am writing this letter on behalf of the member companies of the Ontario Natural Gas Association (ONGA) to express our serious concerns regarding Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation. In particular, we firmly believe that sections 23 to 24 of the bill represent a real disincentive for property owners and managers to initiate capital improvements which effect savings in energy costs. In our view, such a disincentive is not in the public interest.

"Energy efficiency and conservation make economic, social and environmental sense. As a result governments, industry and the public have facilitated significant energy efficiency and conservation measures in buildings which ultimately have reduced operating costs. In recent months, ONGA has been working with the ministries of Housing and Energy to implement such measures. Bill 121, however, could inhibit the implementation of equipment retrofit or conversion programs if a reduction in operating costs for energy in a rental unit could lead to a reduction in rent. This seems to be at cross-purposes with other government policies, particularly the energy efficiency and conservation thrust of the Ministry of Energy, and including Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

"In the November 1990 speech from the throne the government announced new energy directions for the province of Ontario to protect the environment while ensuring that the province continues to have a reliable supply of energy at reasonable prices. The goal is to achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency, not just for a few individual consumers but for the province as a whole. The year 2000 has been established as a target date for Ontario to become North America's leader in energy-efficient practices and technologies.

"A year ago the Ministry of Energy presented for public consultation its draft framework for a comprehensive energy efficiency and conservation policy. The ministry's proposed policy framework included a series of strategic principles, including:

"'Ontario must achieve as much energy efficiency potential as is feasible. This means reducing the financial, institutional, information and technological barriers that currently discourage greater improvements in energy efficiency." Note, Mr Chair, that the words "financial barriers" are included in that particular framework policy. The framework policy continued:

"'energy efficiency/conservation is the first priority for meeting Ontario's requirements for energy services...,'" and third,

"'government, business and individual consumers must be partners in this effort to achieve the greatest levels of energy efficiency.'"

The president of the Ontario Natural Gas Association continues and concludes his letter: "In talking recently to our customers we believe that as a result of Bill 121 property owners and managers may decide not to make a capital investment to replace or upgrade their energy facilities until just prior to the end of its life expectancy. In addition, they will likely invest in less efficient equipment, which may require a lower capital cost but result in higher operating costs.

"Investment in energy efficiency improvements creates employment in the construction, manufacturing and building service industries. Efficiency improvements in Ontario will reduce the demand for electricity and assist Ontario Hydro in meeting its demand-side management objectives." The third point was, "As well, energy efficiency and conservation lead to reduced atmospheric emissions and a cleaner environment.

"We regret that we were not aware of the existence of Bill 121 until recently, as we would have appreciated the opportunity to share our views with the standing committee of the Legislature which considered the legislation. However, we would be very interested in meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our concerns in greater detail."

1550

The minister was sent this letter on May 15 -- I suspect it was delivered the same day -- requesting a meeting on this important issue. I also happen to know that the minister's office was in communication with other parties who were very distressed about the energy conservation measures in this bill, or lack thereof. The irony of all this is that what the Ministry of Housing has done with this bill does not meet with the approval of the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry of Energy officials are very supportive of the amendments that are tabled with this House right now to ensure that energy conservation is a priority.

I am delighted that the Minister of Energy is in the House right now, because I know he is trying with every effort to ensure that energy conservation is a priority in this province. But what we have here is a scenario where the right hand and the left hand are not working together. It was very clear when we had the Ministry of Energy appear before the Bill 121 committee back in January that the Ministry of Energy bureaucrats who appeared were very uncomfortable with what was happening. I am most distressed that the Minister of Housing did not consult with and heed what the Ministry of Energy was saying.

If you look at the energy policy of the Ministry of Energy and, hence, of this government, we have set targets of the year 2000, and it is made very clear in the framework that in order to achieve these targets we would need a partnership with government and industry and consumers. Everybody has to play a part. But what the government has said through its other arm, the Ministry of Housing, is, "Yes, we think that people should play a part and play a role, but only the landlords." I think we as consumers should be playing a part, whether tenants or householders.

I would like to give you an example that was provided to me of a 100-suite apartment building and what the energy cost differential would be if there was a conversion from electric heat to natural gas; not only heat, obviously all aspects of the utilities. I have actually two aspects of it. One is if it were the conventional equipment that replaced it and the other is if it were high-efficiency.

In the conventional natural gas equipment that would replace the electrical equipment, the estimated annual energy cost -- and you remember this is a 100-unit apartment building -- for electricity is $22,833. The estimated annual energy cost for natural gas is $8,079. The annual difference is $14,754.

In the second example, where it is a high-efficiency piece of equipment that is installed, the estimated annual energy cost is still $22,833 for electricity, but the estimated annual energy cost for natural gas lessens to $5,797, leading to an annual difference of $17,036.

In both the scenarios I have brought up this afternoon, the one where the landlord doesn't even intend to go for capital expenditures and a rent increase resulting for it, and also in the other scenario where the landlord does, it is extremely important that we create an incentive to do it. I say again to the minister, what incentive is there when we have an incredibly complex piece of legislation? You have a whole set of hoops, bureaucratic rules and regulations and personnel that a person has to go through, whether landlord or tenant, in order to go through rent review. It opens the hatches for rent reductions in other areas, and yet at the same time, after the landlord has made these considerable expenditures, the tenants may, and the operative word is "may," go for a reduction in their rent due to the cost savings.

I really do hope that the minister will take a second look at it. I know that the ministry had been looking at energy conservation, and quite frankly I was very disappointed that what came out of the so-called thought-bending processes in the Ministry of Housing was two words in its amendment, "and water." As valuable as it is to add water conservation to the list, and I'm glad they did that, it certainly does not address the problem of providing incentives.

The other aspect I'd like to share with you today regarding water and energy conservation is an article that appeared in Now Magazine from the May 21-27 issue of this year. It's called "High-Rise Conserving Zapped":

"A minor clause in the NDP's new rent control bill will 'absolutely slam the door shut' on energy conservation in apartment blocks, says Bob Tamblyn, chair of Engineering Interface.

"Under the new law, tenants can demand their share" -- not only their share, but the entire share -- "of any water and electricity savings.

"Though this looks like a win for tenants, 'It's a lose-lose situation for tenants and the environment,' says Steve Vaccaro, president of EcoMatrix.

"Tamblyn and Vaccaro run new-breed energy savings companies that feature a 'pay from savings' sales pitch that guarantees something for nothing.

"In a typical high-rise, Vaccaro will install water-efficient toilets, showerheads and faucets in 200 units for 'free.'"

So remember, Madam Minister, in this particular instance -- and this is not in the article, but for the minister's edification -- the landlord is not going to be paying the cost. Therefore the tenants don't pay the cost of the installation because the company is doing this.

To return to the article: "With no effort or lifestyle changes from tenants, the landlord's water and heating bill is cut $20,000 a year. Vaccaro's one-time fee, usually around $24,000, is paid strictly out of the savings. After that, the landlord pockets the difference." Again I diverge from the article for one moment -- but not according to how Bill 121 is in its current form.

"Since water is heavily subsidized," the article continues, "city taxpayers save as much as the landlord. And Ontario Hydro saves the electricity wasted in the production of chlorine for sewage treatment -- chlorine is an energy-intensive product based on cracking salt with electric charges -- and in pumping water needlessly across the city. Water treatment and handling is Toronto's second-biggest electrical load.

"Tamblyn works out a similar 'pay from savings' contract for electricity. 'Free of charge,' he installs efficiency lightbulbs, stairwell lights with motion detectors, better controls on fans, and weatherproofing. He is paid back out of savings made over five years.

"The unique financing system that opens doors to new customers is closed out by the new law. Tenants will be able to demand a rebate for any water or electricity savings, forcing landlords to pay out twice, once to their tenants and a second time to the energy-saving company.

"It's not likely many landlords will opt for conservation at this price.

"But the ministry remains unconvinced by the lobbying efforts of these energy-saving companies, according to Housing ministry policy adviser Tim Welch.

"'It still is fair to share savings from energy conservation,' he says."

Where's the share in that? Where's the incentive? is more to the point. If the Ministry of Housing continues with the bill in its present form -- and maybe I'm wasting my voice: Maybe, on the one hand, the Minister of Housing has actually reconsidered and is willing to consider the Liberal caucus amendments on the energy situation; on the other hand, maybe the minister isn't listening because the minister doesn't intend to accept our amendments; or maybe the minister is listening but she just is not convinced this is the right way to go.

See, Madam Minister, I've even given you a face-saving option. Except it doesn't save face, because if the bureaucratic red tape at the Ministry of Housing is preventing energy conservation and water conservation, then you are not doing your part as part of this government to meet the targets set by the Ministry of Energy. You are not doing your part to ensure that partnership exists and that partnership works.

I wait with bated breath for the minister's comments, when she will tell us she is indeed supporting the Liberal Party amendment to section 24 and will bring peace, prosperity and conservation to the province.

1600

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): A question, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Point of order?

Mrs Marland: A point of order of process: Does the minister wish to respond to the critic for the Liberal caucus? I don't know what the preference is for how this is going to be dealt with now this afternoon.

The Chair: It's up to you to decide. The member for Eglinton had the floor. The time has been divided equally. If she wishes to ask questions to the minister, she's free to do so. Is this your wish, the member for Eglinton?

Ms Poole: The minister is free to do whatever she wants with her time. I'd be pleased to hear a response.

The Chair: So whoever wants to take the floor.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I wasn't clear whether the member for Mississauga South wanted to speak on the same point; if so, I would have permitted her to go ahead. If she wishes to raise another point, then I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised by Ms Poole.

The sections of the bill that we're dealing with are sections 15 and 24. Ms Poole is referring specifically to an amendment we've put forward which adds water conservation to the measures that can be undertaken by a landlord and justify an above-guideline application by the landlord.

I'd like to point out that there are two ways in which a landlord can undertake energy conservation measures. One is to make an application for work done to create energy savings or water conservation savings, as they may be. Under section 15, the landlord can make an application which can be for up to 3% above guideline and that can be for three years in a row for a particular undertaking, as Ms Poole understands. I'm sure she will agree, in the case where the tenants in effect are paying for the cost of the renovation because the landlord gets an above-guideline increase for that purpose, that obviously we would wish in fairness to have the tenants share in the energy savings.

I would point out to her that under section 24, which is the section which applies to a tenant who feels he or she is in a position to ask for a rent decrease because of energy or water conservation, the application will really only have effect once there's an absolute decrease in the cost of the service, either energy use or water use. Given the rising costs both of energy and of water that we can project in the 1990s, we know it's going to have to be a very major undertaking on the part of the landlord to produce an absolute decrease in the amount of energy or water costs the landlord will be paying.

I'm sure she understands, for example, that if there is a cost of $1,000 for heating in 1992 and in 1993 the landlord undertook a renovation which produced a cost of $999 in 1993 for the equivalent heating for the apartment, then the tenant would be able to apply for $1 in the decrease in the cost. In the meantime, the landlord might well have saved energy costs of up to 10%; we might be talking about $100 in a situation like this. I'm sure she'll agree that in a situation like this one, where the landlord is able to avoid increasing energy costs and there is an absolute decrease in the energy costs the landlord is going to pay for the apartment, and the tenant has helped finance the renovation, the tenant should have some share in the energy saving. Whether or not the behaviour of the tenant has changed, the tenant has in this situation, through the application of the landlord for an above-guideline increase, invested in that energy renovation.

She raises another question, the question of the energy companies which will come in and make arrangements with an owner, charge the owner nothing and will recoup their payments out of the energy savings that are accrued because of the energy renovation. We are starting now, fortunately, to see a real industry developing in this kind of undertaking. It's very important to our economy and it is something our government is very interested in encouraging not only in private dwellings but also within our own, those housing units for which we are responsible in the province.

Consumers' Gas is also starting to talk about making similar kinds of arrangements. It's these kinds of contracts she has raised as the huge issue and she colours it with all kinds of discussions of intransigent bureaucrats and heavy red tape at the door of the ministry and so on and so on.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Green tape.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The House leader points out that we might call it green tape; anyhow, she called it red tape.

We are very interested in promoting this part of the energy conservation industry and we are very interested in seeing that it flourishes within the private sector, in fact in the private rental sector. We feel there is no inhibition in the legislation that is before us today, either in section 15 or in section 24, to the operations of these kinds of arrangements in private rental accommodation. We have been having meetings with these energy-saving companies and we are meeting with Consumers' Gas.

She shouldn't have nightmares about bureaucrats who won't blink and ministers who are afraid of losing face. She should just relax about all these concerns she has and assume that this minister and this government are quite dedicated and have the assistance of a quite dedicated staff in making sure that the arrangements that can be made by such companies to the benefit of landlords and to the benefit of tenants are not going to be inhibited by section 15 or section 24 of the bill.

We feel we can make arrangements through regulation that will indicate quite clearly that in the situations where tenants are not being asked to pay for the energy investments that are being made, where the landlord is in fact working out an arrangement with an energy-saving company, there's just not going to be a problem in terms of the operation of the legislation.

If I could add one other word, Mr Chair, it has been a matter of great irritation to me that the opponents of this legislation have been running around the countryside assuring all kinds of water conservation and energy conservation companies that the passage of Bill 121 is going to present great big roadblocks to investment by landlords. Landlords have been going around, FRPO has been going around suggesting that there are going to be great big roadblocks put in the way of effective and financially sound energy investments in residential apartments in Ontario.

1610

There are companies, for example, which produce a little piece of equipment called a water dam which fits over the tubes inside a toilet tank and prevents the whole toilet tank from flushing down each time the knob is pushed, hence saving perhaps half, perhaps two thirds of the water normally used in a toilet flush. It has come to the point where the companies that have been producing and distributing these dams in Ontario have had lobbyists against this bill assure them that it was impossible for them to invest in these $20 water dams because we had removed all incentive for landlords to buy these pieces of equipment. Give me a break. This is a $20 piece of equipment. I'm not advertising it; I can't assure its quality.

Mrs Marland: I got one for $12.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You got one for $12, and I'm sure they're produced for much less. But for anyone with a straight face and with any -- really, it is indescribably irritating to me that landlords should be telling the distributors of these pieces of equipment that they can't be used in private rental accommodation in Ontario because Bill 121 makes it impossible.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill 121 has a very generous guideline built into it, and any landlord who can't afford the $12 per apartment or per toilet, or the $20 I paid for one for my office, any landlord who can't afford that out of the very generous guideline can actually apply for an above-guideline increase if he or she can justify that the 2% within the guideline that is supposed to be used for such purposes has in fact been spent on something necessary under this legislation. For anyone to tell people in the energy conservation business and the water conservation business that these simple -- and I hope they'll prove to be very effective -- additions to our tools for energy and water conservation are ruled out economically by this legislation is just absolutely revolting.

I hope no members of the Legislature will join in that very unethical kind of talk around this province. I hope that whenever they hear it, and we hear it all over this province, they will make sure that people understand there is nothing in 121 that will justify that kind of position and that in fact 121 provides mechanisms that will very easily allow landlords to purchase such equipment, install it and, I hope, join the rest of us in pursuing our energy- and water-saving goals.

Ms Poole: The minister may be revolted, but no less than I am by her comments. To bring in garbage about unethical talk is pure stupidity.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It is unethical.

Ms Poole: Oh, give me a break. Rather than degenerate into this type of talk, let's talk about the facts.

First, the minister said, "Well, the tenant has invested." I have given her two specific areas where the tenant has not invested a penny.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I dealt with those separately.

Ms Poole: She says she dealt with them. She didn't deal with them at all. She says there are no inhibitions. Let's take, for instance, the companies that have a financing package in which the landlord will pay for the conservation measures through the savings. If there aren't any savings, Madam Minister, can you not get it through your head that there is no incentive for a deal? That is called an inhibition.

Second, she said she wishes I would just relax and assume that all is well with the minister and the ministry, that they will be vigilant in taking care of the energy conservation needs of the province. I have a word for that but I'm sure it would be unparliamentary. Instead, I will say that I place absolutely no credence in the minister being vigilant.

The minister has made it clear that she wants only one thing, which she says is that the tenants pay the least amount of rent possible. She doesn't care if those buildings fall down about them. She doesn't care if there's water conservation or energy conservation. She pretends she does, but she doesn't. If she did, when all these issues were brought to her attention she would have brought in some measure to address them. Instead, we have a purely recalcitrant minister who says: "I've made up my mind. Don't bother me with the facts."

She talks about a $12 valve and says, "I can't understand why any landlord wouldn't want to do that." The estimated cost for an average water conservation package in a 200-unit complex -- and that includes not only the valve she talked about but things like low-flow showerheads; this is just water conservation -- is $25,000 worth of work.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Shame on you. What scandalous figures.

Ms Poole: The minister may make her interjections as she will, but I'm just going to ignore what she says because it is nonsense.

If you take the other side of the equation, the same example I gave you a bit earlier, in a 100-unit building a landlord would incur a loss of more than $10,000 to convert to gas water heating. So the minister tries to delude us into thinking it's a $12 valve we're talking about. There is more to water conservation than a $12 valve. I wish the minister would perhaps broaden her horizons and look beyond the $12 valve.

The one thing the minister has not even mentioned is the comfort of tenants. If the landlord decides to put in those Thermopane windows or make the building more comfortable through energy conservation, where you achieve both methods at the same time, she doesn't mention the fact that tenants will have a much better lifestyle because of it.

I'm still waiting for the minister to give me an answer to the two examples I gave where there is no capital expenditure put through the rent review system.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No problem.

Ms Poole: She says it's not a problem. It is a problem if tenants can make an application for rent reduction because of extraordinary operating decreases, which they can in sections 23 and 24. That's why we've amended that section -- so we can encourage conservation. I think it is shameful that a minister of this government would ignore what we see as very important energy conservation methods, which her own Minister of Energy also sees as important energy conservation methods.

1620

Hon Ms Gigantes: I tried to make it clear when I spoke first in response to Ms Poole's comments that I expect a lot of energy conservation is going to be undertaken without the use of these great arrangements she's talking about and without the use of energy conservation companies. There will be a lot that landlords will do and tenants will pay for, and tenants should share in that case. I said to her quite clearly and I'll say it again, if we think energy savings companies are going to be involved, are going to make savings, we can say by regulation that where they're involved, where there's a particular kind of arrangement made by the landlord, section 24, the application by the tenant, won't apply.

Perhaps I should repeat it again because she does seem caught up with something else right now. I am addressing precisely your point which is that where there are special arrangements, either through the tax system or energy-saving companies, we can by regulation say that section 24 is not applicable.

I don't want to change the bill in the way she suggests, though, because if I do it means that where tenants have been asked to bear the costs of the renovation through the guideline and above-guideline increases they won't be able to share in the benefits they've paid for. Now, is that what she wants? We can look after her concern. I've just explained how. We don't have to rewrite the section in the legislation that will allow the great many renovations tenants will effectively pay for to be shared by tenants. We can simply make sure that, by regulation, we're not going to have applications for decreases in rent where there are special arrangements made which do the financing.

I don't know how come she can't separate these two notions, but I'm not going to let up on my conviction that where the tenant has paid, the tenant shall share.

Ms Poole: I'm afraid I don't place a lot of credence or trust in the minister to bring it in, even in the regulations, in the way we feel it is going to be important to energy conservation.

Since we have taken an extensive period of time to discuss energy -- because it is important -- I want to touch briefly on a number of other amendments the Liberal caucus has tabled. I just want to highlight a few of them. One is the issue of equalization. We've tabled an amendment to section 22.

Equalization is a matter where the landlord may make an application to have two identical units which pay two different rents equalized. Let's take a concrete example. You have two apartments; one pays $700 in rent, the second pays $500 in rent. They're identical units in every way. They're on the same floor, they have the same amenities, but they have two different rents. It may be because historically, in one unit, there was a high tenant turnover and every time the tenant left the landlord put the rent up, which happened in the old days before protections were brought in to stop it, and it may be for other reasons.

This is a scenario where the landlord doesn't gain a penny. All the landlord gains is to have the rents equal. One tenant would pay more, the other tenant would pay less. A lot of tenants are very keen to have equalization in this legislation.

This legislation does not contain any provision for equalization. The minister and her minions have hidden behind -- and I didn't mean the director of policy; I was referring to other members -- the provision that it would legalize illegal units. I can say to the minister that legalizing illegal units has nothing to do with the equation. It is not the point. It is not the point tenants have been making to me when they call and say, "Why can't I do this?" Even at the tenant forum I held in my own riding on Sunday a tenant brought the rent review order up and she said, "Are you telling me that under the new legislation I won't be able to get it equalized?" Unfortunately, that's the case.

The second motion I'd like to speak to is the matter of inadequate maintenance. The minister has provided there'll be a rent penalty for inadequate maintenance. However, there is no definition or criteria attached to what inadequate maintenance is.

I'm sorry, Madam Minister, I'm just not willing to leave it to the discretion of rent officers. We've put in an amendment that the standard of maintenance or repairs is inadequate if it results in substantial non-compliance with an applicable municipal or provincial standard that is substantial and subsisting, to go back to the test in the RRRA, where you look at "substantial, subsisting and non-compliance." It would seem to me that is reasonable and it's a reasonable test.

The third amendment I'd like to draw to your attention is section 18. Under the legislation there is a provision, which I have supported and do support, where a reduction in rent may be obtained by the tenant if there is a reduction in services or facilities, and this to me makes sense.

If there are services or facilities incorporated into the rent that the tenant is deprived of, then there should be ability for the tenant to get a rent reduction. However, there's no incentive for the landlord to restore that service because there's nothing in the legislation that gives the ability to restore the rent to its original level after the service is restored or the facility restored.

I think that's only fair, because in many of the situations what the tenants want is not a reduction in rent; they want the facility or the service. If they want the laundry room to be reopened, it's all well and good to say, "We've taken $15 off your rent per month because you no longer have a laundry room," but the tenant wants the laundry room back.

One of the other amendments -- we've tabled a number but there isn't time to go into them this afternoon -- relates to concrete restoration. In an area like concrete restoration, which is intrinsic to the maintenance of our housing stock and which is particularly necessary in large urban areas where we have many underground parking garages, we are very concerned that there be no financial impediment to the landlord from repairing those very extensive and expensive underground parking garage repairs.

Those are just a few of the amendments I'd like to draw to the attention of the House. We have a number of others that are certainly very worthy, but in the limited time I'd like to highlight those ones for the attention of the Legislature.

Hon Ms Gigantes: A number of items have been raised by Ms Poole. I could address a couple of them.

She spoke first of equalization of rents, as I recollect. She will find that while there are many tenants who would love to see rents equalized -- ie, taken down so they would match other rents in the building -- tenants who are paying the lesser rents for equivalent kinds of apartment units, in their view, will not be very keen on having rents moved up.

We have found, and I'm sure Ms Poole is aware of this, that in some of the cases where there are great gaps within one building between levels of rent for equivalent apartments there has been a history which would suggest that illegal rents had been taken by landlords in some of those units. In some cases that's very difficult to trace at this stage, given the kind of legislation we've had in the past.

At this stage we feel it is the better part of wisdom and practice to leave rents the way they are and not put tenants or landlords through the incredible kind of recalculation and justification that would be involved in somehow trying to equalize rents within a building. Undoubtedly it will mean some tenants will pay more than others for equivalent units. There are some good reasons for that and there are some reasons that we suspect reflect illegalities. We intend to leave the situation as is because there will be a majority of tenants, I think, who will not wish to have the situation changed drastically, and that is what would be involved.

1630

When it comes to the issue of maintenance, the suggestion that is being made in the amendment put forward by the member for Eglinton would take us right back to the absolutely impossible situation we've lived under in Bill 51. She says with pride that it would restore the kind of definition of maintenance that has existed since 1986, and I can't understand that.

The wording, "the standard of maintenance or repair is inadequate if it results in substantial non-compliance with an applicable municipal or provincial standard that is substantial and subsisting," has meant that there's been practically no enforcement of maintenance standards at all in this province over the last several years.

The member is suggesting that once again unnamed and difficult bureaucrats, leaving out the director of policy of course, who happens to be here and therefore is not going to be designated in such terms, are just unwilling to define what "inadequate" means. In fact, we have suggested in the regulatory policy material we have distributed to members of the committee and widely throughout the province that we will take a regulatory approach that would include such matters as would affect the judgement of a reasonable person who was able to judge that an inadequate standard of maintenance or repair existed.

These things are not so theological and mysterious that we can't talk about them. We do talk about inadequate maintenance in common, everyday language, and I hope you'll take my word for the fact that most tenants in this province feel they know what constitutes adequate maintenance and feel they know what constitutes inadequate maintenance.

Clearly we would be dealing with violations of municipal bylaws, we would be dealing with violations of legislation that had regard to health and safety, we'd be dealing with violations of provincial maintenance standards when those were the only ones that were applicable, and we would also expect that a tenant had made a reasonable effort with the landlord to make sure that the maintenance problem being raised by the tenant was one which had been raised first by the tenant with the landlord, so that the landlord at least was aware

of what the tenant felt to be the problem.

Then we will expect our rent officers, sometimes in conjunction with property standards officers or provincial inspectors, to be able to determine whether maintenance is adequate. That will be part of their duties, and we will expect that they will make decisions around that that will be approved by most reasonable people in this province.

Am I missing other matters that were raised by the member? Oh, concrete restoration. Concrete restoration has constituted one of the great focal points for discussion when it comes to rent review, and it has been suggested time after time that in fact there will be no more concrete restoration in the province of Ontario to time eternal if Bill 121 becomes legislation.

We believe, having done the calculations and the costs, that in many instances the work that needs to be undertaken to maintain and restore even expensive areas of a building, such as underground parking, balcony work and elevators, will be provided for adequately in the above-guideline applications that we can expect under Bill 121.

There may be cases in fact where landlords will have to expect to contribute some of their own moneys as investors into such renovations and repairs, but that's not something that I think we should all faint about. Landlords are in business. Landlords, I suppose, expect at some point to put in equity in order to build equity.

We do feel the allowance that has been made, both within the guideline and the above-guideline mechanism that exists in Bill 121, will in the great majority of cases provide the billions of dollars that will be needed over the next decade to make sure that large apartment buildings, particularly those built in the period of the 1960s and 1970s where elevators, balconies and underground parking were just beginning to be introduced into Ontario as building technologies -- some of those buildings require an awful lot of work now, but we expect there will be billions of dollars generated within the application of Bill 121, which will provide sufficiently for the renovation to be done in the majority of buildings.

I am concerned, overall, that we look at the stock of rental accommodation in Ontario and provide over the longer run, where there are difficulties and where there are problems, a mechanism directed specifically towards them. I know this will cause the member for Mississauga South to laugh and scoff again, but I intend to reflect further on this matter in the hope that over the next few months -- it might even take a year -- we will be able to come up with some programs which will address that kind of situation directly. I think I will leave it at that for the moment.

Mrs Marland: I'm not really sure whether the process we're going through now in committee of the whole is going to make very much sense to anybody watching or anybody reading. You know, it is probably more methodical when we go through the bill and we each speak to it section by section. I don't know what was in the minds of the House leaders this morning when they decided this would be the format for this afternoon. But since I'm not one of the House leaders, who am I to question the process we are now into?

From my point of view the process is a little frustrating, because the bill is totally frustrating. To try to decide, in the 45 minutes I have left in committee of the whole, which is the greatest priority to address in terms of which is the worst part of this bill at this point in time is a very difficult challenge.

I have some notes I had prepared for the section-by-section process, so I think perhaps the best thing for me to do is to try to proceed through my notes and at the same time address the amendments I had tabled at the beginning of the committee of the whole process.

First, I think we've got to talk about why we are in committee of the whole. Of course those of us who were in the general government committee meeting recognize there was one motion by the Progressive Conservative caucus members that successfully slipped through because the government members were asleep at the switch. That necessitated this committee of the whole proceeding, so that the bill could be reopened and that error on the part of government members is corrected.

1640

It's extremely hypocritical of this NDP government to retract the PC Party's amendment to section 14.1, which passed in general government committee. This amendment extended the scope of a property owner's application for an above-guideline rent increase to include financing costs. The second part of our amendment limited the scope of applications to only those increases in financing arrangements that are legitimate. We perceive such increases as a cost of doing business for a property owner as the market is not always stable or predictable.

I questioned the minister during clause-by-clause about a hypothetical situation in which "the current market rate of interest is substantially higher than the mortgage that is presently on that property, for example, at the end of a 15- or a 20-year mortgage which happens to have been at 5% or 6%, which is possible. That property owner goes for new financing and the current fair market rate of interest is obviously not 5% or 6% any more, but maybe 10% or 11%. How does the minister anticipate that the property owner going for that new financing at twice the rate of interest can afford that interest without some allowance through the rents?" The minister replied, "The landlord will obviously have to manage his or her financial affairs." It sounded as though she thought property owners controlled the setting of interest rates.

The minister is driving the private sector out of the rental housing market through this legislation. As the bill has created an air of uncertainty for investment in the rental industry, what has scared the banks and investment firms away from supporting and working with property owners is the fact that once this legislation passes no property owner will ever again be guaranteed a minimum rent, let alone the standard maximum rent, under this act.

A property owner can now have the rent of a single unit or a whole complex reduced under the following circumstances: (1) if there has been a reduction in services or facilities, (2) if there has been a decrease in municipal taxes or the cost of services, (3) if the property owner installs any conservation measures, (4) if there is neglect or inadequate maintenance of the property or (5) if the property owner applies for an above-guideline increase based on a capital expenditure.

The issue of costs no longer borne compounds the effect of a continually fluctuating rent payment. I will further address the problems of the measures for costs no longer borne when we come to the appropriate sections of the bill.

The next major point I will address is the fact that in the original version of the bill a property owner was supposedly entitled to 2% within the guideline amount for the undertaking of minor capital expenditures. Bill 121 allows for an annual rent increase each year for all rental units based on a three-year moving average called the rent control index. This annual increase covers such factors as inflation and minimally increased taxes or service charges. The yearly increase under Bill 121 would be 55% of this average, plus 2% for capital expenditures.

However, during clause-by-clause the ministry introduced an amendment to subsections 23(3) to 20(6) which stipulated that this 2% within-the-guideline amount would not be guaranteed each year. If a property owner applies for an above-guideline increase, he not only has to justify the use of the requested above-guideline increase but also must justify the use of the 2% in the guideline. To draw a comparison to another ill-conceived NDP idea, its version of the rent review process is Bob Rae's casino, where property owners spend a dollar to get back 60 cents.

The use of the 2% of the guideline in this manner compounds the financial damage to the property owner and the structural damage to the complex or unit. This 2% will normally be used to replace or repair minor items in the unit or complex. Examples of its use would be the purchase and installation of a new stove, new carpets, painting or other minor repair work. Every tenant and property owner can testify that there are always minor repairs that need to be undertaken each year. The 2% was supposed to accommodate them. If this 2% must be rolled into the amount required to qualify for an above-guideline increase, this means minor repairs will be passed over or neglected, to use another expression, in order that major capital expenditures can be undertaken.

Again, this point ties in with the lack of a definition of "neglect" in Bill 121. As the bill stands, property owners will be charged with neglect in maintaining their buildings if this is the way to qualify for above-guideline increases.

Another irony is that the amount the property owner will eventually receive for the capital expenditure -- including the 2%, that will work out to 5% if the property owner qualifies for the maximum 3% above-guideline increase -- will not even be sufficient in most cases to cover a portion of the property owner's capital expenditure. So the scenario is that a property owner either (1) pursues the upkeep of the building through small repairs every year and ignores the larger projects, only to be penalized for neglect or (2) sacrifices the normal upkeep in order to qualify for the maximum above-guideline increase, accrues an enormous debt, still gets charged with neglect and most likely loses the building. Long before the Bob Rae government considered legalized gambling, it initiated legislation that will have the property owners of the province playing Russian roulette.

Another vital issue is the role of rent officers and their training. I did make some comments about this part of the bill and the relationship of rent officers to the execution of the whole bill earlier this week. Sections 20 to 32 outline their functions, while section 126 defines appointments. I spoke at length about the rent officers during committee because I'm very concerned about their training and the fact that they have to interpret the various ambiguous sections of the bill and its inadequate and/or non-existent definitions. As I stated during clause-by-clause, who is going to be trained to be able to look at a building and decide on the structural integrity of that building?

1650

Another of my major concerns is that the bill contains no incentives for property owners who wish to undertake renovations for the purpose of energy conservation. During clause-by-clause I introduced an amendment to subsection 24(4) which would have ensured that property owners who had undertaken capital expenditures, which included the implementation of energy-conserving features were allowed to realize these costs before the rent could be decreased by a tenant application. As the legislation currently stands, it is faster for a tenant to apply for and receive a decrease in rent than it is for the property owner to apply for and receive an increase as a result of capital expenditures, including the installation of energy-conserving features.

I'd like to make some comments particularly about energy conservation. When we moved the amendment to section 135 and also to section 24 -- and there again, this is the problem of trying to speak to the whole bill all at once and skipping all over the place -- subsection 24(4) was one of our amendments. The reason for that amendment was that it would have exempted from an extraordinary decrease application any implementation of energy conservation measures that had been approved by a rent officer through an advance determination.

When we talk about energy conservation it actually covers a number of types of energy and various methods of conservation. Ontario's natural gas industry is concerned about Bill 121 because it believes property owners and managers may decide not to make a capital investment to replace or upgrade their energy facilities until just prior to the end of their life expectancy. In addition, they will likely invest in less efficient equipment, which may require a lower capital cost but result in higher operating costs. Investment in energy efficiency and conservation improvements creates much-needed employment in the construction, manufacturing and building service industries. Bill 121 would inhibit, not be helpful, in this regard.

As well, efficiency improvements in Ontario will reduce the demand for electricity and assist Ontario Hydro in meeting its demand-side management objectives. On the environmental side, energy efficiency and conservation lead to reduced atmospheric emissions and a cleaner environment. Energy efficiency and conservation are the highest energy priorities for Ontario. Bill 121 is at cross-purposes with government policy, particularly that espoused by the ministries of Energy and the Environment -- rather a coincidence. I would point out to you, Mr Chair, that here in this delightful socialist government we have three ministries which don't agree -- rather an irony that the Minister of Housing is at odds with her colleagues around the cabinet table, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy.

In the November 1990 speech from the throne the government announced new energy directions for the province of Ontario. These new directions were designed to protect the environment while ensuring reliable supplies of energy at reasonable prices. The new energy directions include new initiatives on conservation and intensified efforts by Ontario Hydro on energy efficiency and conservation. Natural gas utilities, in conjunction with other energy supply and service companies, will be expected to be central players in achieving the government's objectives through the delivery of energy-efficient services and programs.

The Ministry of Energy has said that the government will consider regulatory measures to encourage wiser use of energy if this results in clearer long-term economic and environmental benefits to Ontario and the consumer. For example, restrictions have already been placed on the use of electric resistance heating in new social housing funded by the Ontario government where undue emphasis on first costs was leading to uneconomic fuel choices. This should encourage high energy efficiency in the end use.

Fuel substitution programs should be designed to ensure that where customers switch from electricity a high priority is given to the installation of high-efficiency equipment and associated conservation measures. Fuel substitution initiatives, like other demand-management programs, should reduce the costs of energy service and lower customers' total energy bills.

The Ministry of Energy has established the year 2000 as a target date for Ontario to become North America's leader in energy efficiency practices and technologies. To reach this goal, Ontario must achieve as much economic energy efficiency potential as is feasible. This means reducing the financial, institutional, information and technical barriers that currently discourage greater improvement in energy efficiencies.

Since June 1991 the Ministry of Energy, in consultation with other ministries, I guess with the exception of the Ministry of Housing, has been developing a framework for a comprehensive policy for energy efficiency in conservation. The policy framework would provide the overall strategic direction for energy efficiency policies and activities in order to achieve greater levels of efficiency and conservation. The framework includes a series of strategic principles, including: "Ontario must achieve as much energy efficiency potential as is feasible. This means reducing the financial, institutional, information and technological barriers that currently discourage greater improvements in energy efficiency."

Clearly Bill 121 is at odds with this framework, because it would seem to erect the kind of barriers that the Ministry of Energy is trying to reduce. One final part of that framework, which I didn't read and I will now read, says that "government, business and individual consumers must be partners in this effort to achieve the greatest levels of energy efficiency."

What an irony when we can't even get the three ministers to be partners. We've got the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment at odds with the Minister of Housing, because her Bill 121 conflicts directly with the initiatives of the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment.

If a building manager, property owner or landlord needs to consult his lawyer to figure what he or she can or cannot do in terms of energy conservation in a building, it doesn't really matter; he or she simply won't do it.

1700

My next major concern is the lack of an appeal system except on points of law, a serious oversight in the procedures section of the bill, part II. I did speak on this issue in this committee of the whole House two days ago. Bill 51 allowed for an appeal process which was favourably viewed by both property owners and tenants. The Liberal amendment which addressed this inadequacy in Bill 121 was a duplication of the process in Bill 51. My party supported the Liberal amendment due to the fact that in our consultations with property owners and tenant groups no one could suggest any valid improvements to the old system. As the adage says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The Minister of Transportation saw this wisdom when he answered a question by the member for York Mills regarding licensing offices. Obviously his colleague the Minister of Housing does not share his views. It is unconscionable that Bill 121 does not include an appeal process. An appeal process has been central to the system of rent control since its institution. As I said earlier, due to this legislation's lack of definition and directives for those who enforce it, an appeal process is required more so for this legislation than for any which preceded it.

It is absolutely unheard-of that the process of approving rent increases and decreases based on inadequate definitions can be arbitrarily decided by one person, the rent officer, or, as I choose to call this incredibly powerful person, this incredibly knowledgeable person, we would hope -- but we have no idea yet what in the fullness of time the actual qualifications and training of this rent officer will be, whose training the minister cannot even describe.

Our party introduced an amendment concerning the continuation of the 2% in the guideline for capital expenditures. This is an issue I discussed earlier. With the introduction of the government amendment, which allows the process of applying costs no longer borne to capital expenditures, the guarantee of this 2% was further threatened. The process of determining costs no longer borne involves defining a capital expenditure as a capital component of the maximum rent. Thus the expenditure becomes factored into the maximum unit rent and its useful life is amortized. The cost is lifted out of the maximum rent calculation when its useful life has been achieved, creating a decrease in the rent until the property owner is able to replace the item with another cost.

The current interpretation of the bill also allows the standard 2% of the guideline normally used for capital expenditures to be lifted out of the calculation. This means not only that the property owner loses the financial recuperation of the capital expenditure, even though it is unlikely that the cost has been recovered since the useful life tables do not adequately reflect the longevity of certain items, but that he also loses the annual 2% guideline to which he is rightfully entitled.

The Ministry of Housing recognized the significance of this lose-lose situation and agreed to support an amendment of this nature. The minister refused my initial amendment on the ground that it was worded in a too complex manner. However, after intensive negotiations with the ministry staff and legal counsel, the revised amendment to section 135 was only subtly altered in the wording.

Once more, I want to place on the record the definition of those amendments our caucus has placed in committee of the whole. The first one I addressed was subsection 21(6.1). That is simply the amendment that gives the rent officer the power to extend the carry-forward period in circumstances where an advanced determination is related to a capital expenditure for the purposes of implementing energy or water conservation measures. From my comments on energy conservation, which includes water as well, I think it's very obvious why we are placing that amendment.

The next amendment was to subsection 24(4). This one I have also previously referred to. It's the amendment which exempts, from an extraordinary decrease application, any implementation of energy conservation measures that would have been approved by a rent officer through an advanced determination.

Clause 29(2)(c.1): This amendment gives the rent officer the ability to determine in advance the effects of a capital expenditure based on implementing energy or water conservation measures.

Subsection 135(1.1) is the amendment I have just been addressing, which is about the 2% guideline.

I want to just return for a couple of moments to again emphasize why our Progressive Conservative caucus has been so concerned as we've gone through Bill 121 in the general government committee and again now in committee of the whole House. I think everyone has to be concerned about a government of any name or political stripe which brings in a piece of legislation that is subsequently given over 200 amendments by the people who drafted the legislation in the first place. You have to wonder what is going on in the Ministry of Housing, whereby it would be in such a rush to bring in such a poorly drafted bill that in turn required over 200 amendments. It makes the whole process of introducing bills quite a farce, I would suggest.

Yet when one looks at the answers the minister has given us from time to time as we have gone through these committee hearings, one perhaps begins to understand the confusion in the ministry, because the minister herself is obviously totally confused also; and since we are in a situation where of course the direction to ministry staff comes from the top, then I guess we have to look at the top.

I remember one day, in fact it was November 28, in the committee when I was asking the minister about whether or not she thought the age of buildings was relative to the cost of repairs and renovations to those buildings. I thought it was really significant that while we were trying to argue that property owners needed some special consideration if they own older buildings, that there is obviously a greater cost of renovation, a greater cost of maintenance and general upkeep if the building is older, when I asked the minister, the answer she gave me was, and I quote from the November 28 Hansard of the standing committee: "The age of the building is not really relevant to this question. Just because a building is 30 years old does not mean it is going to cost more in repairs or to operate."

1710

The age of the building is not the real question, okay? It is important that the people of Ontario understand what this minister is saying. But at the same time that the minister advised the committee that the age of buildings is not relevant and at the same time that she said that because a building was 30 years old it didn't mean it was going to cost more to repair or to operate --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Read the whole thing.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Read on.

Mrs Marland: It's great that now the seals have wakened up. They don't like it when you start putting something on the record that is correct.

But at the same time as the record in Hansard shows that was the minister's answer, I obtained from the Ministry of Housing, dated February 1991 -- from February to November; this was obviously published some eight months earlier. You would have thought the minister might be familiar within that time frame with what the facts really are. Here is a consultation paper from the Ministry of Housing which says: "Age of building has an important bearing on the condition of the rental stock. Generally, the older the building, the greater the need for repairs and maintenance."

Here is a publication from the Ministry of Housing which proves that if the minister would leave the ministry staff alone, they could probably get on with their job quite competently, because the ministry staff agree with the point I was trying to make on behalf of property owners in this province, which is that if you do have an older building, it is going to cost more for maintenance and more to operate. The ministry's own statement, the document from the Ministry of Housing, confirms that what I said is correct. At the same time, eight months later, the minister tries to tell the committee that the age of a building is not a factor.

I wouldn't use the words "trying to mislead the committee," because that is not acceptable in this House, but in all sincerity, when somebody asks the Minister of Housing a question, you would expect that her answer would agree with published papers from her own ministry. Obviously she doesn't know what is going on in her ministry, and she certainly doesn't understand what the age of a building has to do with the cost of operating it; although another time in committee we did have an exchange where I think she said she lives in an older house herself. But she admitted that her older house had a new furnace and double-glazed windows, so she had made or perhaps someone before she owned it had made those improvements to the house.

I give that to you as an example of the kind of frustration we experienced all the way through the process with this bill, the fact that there were so many government amendments. The bill was totally a mess. It was so poorly drafted it should have been withdrawn. We're here trying to fix it up again. It's not going to get improved. It's going to be passed because we have a majority government.

We're very fortunate in Ontario because we're blessed with this majority socialist government, which has a mindset. They know where they want to go in terms of housing policies in this province. They don't care about the fact that today you could go out and rent a bachelor apartment for $420 a month in Ontario at the same time that this government is building bachelor apartments that cost the taxpayers of this province $1,924 a month. But this Minister of Housing doesn't care about that. That's total irresponsibility on behalf of the people who live and pay taxes in this province.

The other area I have to come back to is the people who are going to enforce this bill, and again, I come back to the rent officers. I can assure you that when we received a letter from the minister while we were sitting in committee some time during February, I think it was -- this was an undated letter. We never did get the actual date of this letter, so I can't identify the letter for you by giving you the date. It was circulated to the committee Chair without a date on it. The letter is from the minister, in response to questions I had placed about training and job descriptions for rent officers. I quote from the letter:

"At the standing committee on general government last week, I undertook to provide the members with information on expected workload under the proposed Rent Control Act, staff training and job descriptions for rent officers.

"As I explained to the committee, until the provisions of Bill 121 are finalized, it is difficult to predict the exact workload, the type of staff need and the job description for rent officers."

A paragraph further down says:

"In developing new job descriptions for rent officers and others under a rent control system, elements of current similar jobs are being reviewed."

The final comment is:

"More specific training on the elements of the rent control system will be undertaken over the next year."

This is the scariest part of all, because this is dealing with the enactment and implementation of this bill. Here we have a letter from the minister saying: "We are still developing the job descriptions. The elements of current similar jobs are being reviewed." This is at a time when we're about to finish the committee hearings on this incredible piece of legislation, Bill 121. At this point, this minister and her staff are still reviewing what the job description will be and, more specifically, the training on the elements of the rent control system will be undertaken in the next year.

All I can say to the people of Ontario is good luck, because you're going to have this bill whether you're a tenant or a property owner, and you're going to have this person called a rent officer -- mind you, I wouldn't worry about it, because there are only going to be 110, unless they've revised that figure. We've got 1.3 million units that are rented in this province; we're going to have 110 rent officers.

Over the next year we're going to be reviewing what their job description is and what training they're going to need; on-the-job training while there are millions of dollars of investment at stake here; on-the-job training for the implementation of this bill by the rent officer, the wizard, the person who is going to be all-powerful, all-knowledgeable, the person who carries the greatest responsibility. The worst part is that whatever his or her decision is on any issue for that tenant or that property owner, there is no appeal of that decision.

I will complete my comments later. Thank you, Madam Chair.

1720

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will try and make a few brief comments in response to the remarks by the member for Mississauga South. She suggested that we were intent in this legislation on driving private apartment owners out of the rental market.

Mr Chair, I would like to assure you, members of this Legislature and any members of the public who may have listened through the remarks of the member for Mississauga South that this is the farthest possible thing from our minds. This legislation indeed tries to set up a system that will regulate rents, that will control rent increases in a reasonable manner and provide at the same time that landlords will have the capital they need to undertake work in their buildings, maintain the buildings properly and make a profit.

I think it's worth noting once again that the difficulties that have been experienced by people who in days past would have invested in the rental market in Ontario cannot be ascribed to this legislation, or indeed to rent control or rent review legislation of any kind, if we compare to British Columbia, for example, where there's been no such legislation over a period of many years. In fact there has been mighty little private rental construction undertaken.

That market has had much more to do with the cost of land, the interest costs and the difficulties in getting private rental accommodation in large urban centres to deliver a profit for a developer. We have seen, in Ontario and in other provinces where condominium legislation has been available, that the condominium mechanism for generating capital investment in residential accommodation for rental purposes has produced rental accommodation in a different way than we used to know it in the past.

The member mentioned the difficulties that will be confronted by a landlord who, under this legislation, will not be able to claim the cost of financing for investments. We have decided this is something that should not be borne by renters in this province. She has suggested this creates a terrible hardship for our landlords who have, for a period of time, carried mortgages which were at a below-market rate and who now suddenly have to renegotiate and are going to find a big difference in the mortgage rates they will be paying.

That's true, but I think we have to understand that the landlord who has had a below-market rate over a period of time has benefited from that. We don't think tenants should be called upon to carry the financing and refinancing of apartment buildings. She raised the question about the role of the rent officer at several points in her discussion. At one point she asked the question, "Who's going to look at the building and decide on the structural integrity of the building?"

I think that deserves a direct answer: a property standards inspector. We do not expect that rent control officers under this legislation will in fact be people who will decide on the structural integrity of buildings; we do expect they will be able to assess whether there has been adequate maintenance. There's a big difference. Tenants will be able under this legislation to make an application for a reduction in rent if maintenance is inadequate. That is to be determined by the rent control officer.

If the tenant is in a building where a property standards officer has decided that there is a problem with the structural integrity of the building and the building has a work order placed against it, that will be carried out by a property standards officer. If there is an outstanding work order against the property, under this legislation the tenant can expect that the landlord will have any application for increase, either within the guideline or above the guideline, declared null and void. The landlord will not be allowed to raise the rent if there is an outstanding work order on the building.

Both Ms Poole and the member for Mississauga South stressed that there was a great wrenching division between me and my colleague the Minister of Energy on the question of measures contained in this bill and how they would affect energy renovations in the future in rental accommodation in Ontario. This is not the case.

Mr Charlton and I are of one mind on the need for energy conservation, the methods we should be pursuing in Ontario to assure energy conservation and the fact that this legislation provides a very happy home for energy conservation in rental accommodation in Ontario. For the benefit of those distressed members opposite, I'm sure he will forgive me for sharing with members of the Legislature a little note that he dropped by my desk a short while ago, having heard comments from opposite. I'll quote, "Ev, maybe you might think that if escos can do the retrofits and pay for them out of savings that perhaps landlords could too and avoid the whole rent review process, Brian," which indicates, once again, for anybody who had any doubt, just what a cutting and fine mind we have in our Minister of Energy in Ontario. He's quite correct.

The member for Mississauga South also stressed her concern again, as she put it, that Bill 121 does not include an appeal process. I must say once again, just for those who might not have heard the debate the other day, that in fact Bill 121 has a mechanism which provides for the chief rent administrator, chief rent officer, to decide if there appears to have been a serious error made or if there has been a calculation error made. Under sections 94 and 95 of the legislation there can be a review of the determination that has been made initially after a hearing by the rent officer.

That is not a full-blown, arm's length, pseudo-judicial, semijudicial appeal process, but it will offer much more timely decision-making. I have discovered, after receiving many, many, many, many, many, many, many letters from tenants that they prize timeliness in decisions around rent determinations very highly.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Not at the cost of no appeal.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member for Oriole suggests not at the cost of no appeal. We shall test that. There is of course appeal to the court. I hope there will be few appeals to the court on matters of law. The experience we have had under Bill 51 with a semijudicial appeal process through the rental review board does not inspire my taste for trying it again. I think tenants who have been through that process, while they may have been more or less pleased by the results, which on the whole did not vary much from the initial administrative decisions that were appealed, would certainly agree that the time consumption involved was extraordinary.

The member for Mississauga South also talked about statements I had made earlier in committee about the relationship between the age of buildings and the cost of renovations. What she neglected to do was to go on to explain what I had tried to draw to the attention of members of the committee who, like the member for Mississauga South, were suggesting that age was the key factor.

In fact, there is a period, as it were, in building art in Ontario which roughly speaking encompasses the 1960s and 1970s where we saw the introduction of techniques of high-rise construction that included "modern" elevators, underground parking and extensive use of balconies in construction. There have been a lot of problems with the first generation of those buildings before the techniques that were being applied here in Ontario became as good as they now are. It is that age and size of building which we are finding the most troublesome in terms of the size and cost of renovations those buildings need now.

1730

One further note on the much-maligned rent officers -- this poor group of people, these rent officers -- most of whom I expect will have proven their abilities and experience with the Ministry of Housing as rent review officers under our existing legislation.

It was a large point of the member for Mississauga South's concern about how they would operate that their job descriptions weren't all prepared and their training hadn't been undertaken several months back. I'd just like to raise this question: Can you imagine what she would have said had we provided job descriptions for officers whose role was not yet defined in legislation or if we had started training for positions which had not yet legislatively been established? I can imagine the grief and wailing we would have heard from the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Caplan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in the third reading debate of Bill 121. This is committee of the whole. We are discussing now the clauses and amendments coming forward, but I would like to use this opportunity and the few minutes remaining to speak about the process we have gone through and about my constituents in the riding of Oriole where many, almost 50%, of the people who live in the riding of Oriole are renters, tenants. They have a very specific interest in housing policy.

I was sitting thinking about a meeting that was held in the summer of 1990 by Lennox Farrell, the NDP candidate in that election campaign. It was attended by a number of tenant activists who were very much in support of Mr Farrell's candidacy. At that meeting I remember very clearly Mr Farrell standing before a microphone reading out the NDP policy and what they would do if they had the opportunity to reform, the opportunity to change and the opportunity to form the government. This is what he said; this was in the Agenda for People:

"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." That quote was what Lennox Farrell said on that warm summer evening in the summer of 1990 during the election campaign. Since that time we've seen Bill 4 and now we have Bill 121.

During the discussion of Bill 4 I tried to make sure that my constituents were fully informed. I sent out a flyer to let them know what was going on. It also had a questionnaire and the tenants in my riding were very concerned about the implications of Bill 4, but they knew it was a short-term and temporary measure and the New Democratic Party would be bringing forward its rent policy. We then see Bill 121. It was tabled in this Legislature in June 1991. The first edition of this bill had 130 clauses. We've seen a second printing of the bill. I have it in my hand. It contains 140 clauses.

I have a long history as a tenant activist. In the early 1970s, as I've said before, I was founding vice-president of my tenants' association. I believe very strongly that when market forces are not working, tenants need the kind of protection to ensure fair rent increases that are fully justified and also to ensure that there is good maintenance and value for money for tenants. I know tenants, as I've said many times in this House, want a clean and decent place to live, and as someone who participated fully through the housing policy developments of the previous government and the development of Bill 51, which was quite unique in that it was the recommendations of nine landlords and nine tenants to the government of the day, I understand the difficulties the NDP found in trying to implement what it promised in that summer of 1990.

I am sad to say that the tenants and the people in my riding, the riding of Oriole, are feeling betrayed.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Again.

Mrs Caplan: Yes, they are feeling betrayed. They're feeling betrayed because what they were promised was a system that would be simple, fair, less complex and less expensive, and what they have is exactly the opposite. This Bill 121 and what it puts forward is very, very complicated, highly complex; 140 clauses to the legislation. It is more expensive than what is in place today. It is going to cost the taxpayers of this province more.

It is not fair, because it takes away from tenants the right of an appeal, and the minister just a moment ago acknowledged that. It takes away the right of appeal of a judgement. Now that judgement will be of a bureaucracy, of a bureaucrat, of a civil servant, rather than an independent quasi-judicial body. It takes that away from tenants, and that's a very serious loss and a very serious right, because the only basis of appeal to the courts, as the minister has just said, is on the basis of law, not on the judgement of the decision.

Tenants and constituents in the riding of Oriole are feeling betrayed because one of the very important features in Bill 51 was the standards board, the concept that would ensure that maintenance was carried out appropriately. That's gone.

So this Bill 121 removes the right of appeal, it removes the concept of the standards board to ensure appropriate maintenance. It has resulted, I believe, in a piece of legislation that is not only a betrayal of the promises that were made by Bob Rae and Lennox Farrell in the summer election of 1990, clearly established in the Agenda for People, but what we have today being proposed is something which I do not believe is in tenant interests in the short term, in the medium term, and certainly not in the long term.

The fact that this is going to be a very complicated, very complex, highly bureaucratic, very expensive and unfair system I think is the reason that during this clause-by-clause consideration, soon to be third reading debate, the government still has the opportunity to admit not only that it didn't know what it was doing when it was campaigning in that summer election of 1990, but that it didn't know what it was doing as an inexperienced group that formed the government. Perhaps in suggesting this new, complex, expensive and unfair piece of legislation, what the government should have done was bring forward amendments to Bill 151, which the tenants and landlords themselves said needed amendment. But what they expected in the way of a whole new, simple, non-bureaucratic, inexpensive, non-complex approach is not what they have.

1740

I would like, in the few minutes remaining, to compliment the Housing critic from the Liberal Party, Ms Poole, the member for Eglinton. Her work has been I think acknowledged in an appropriate way by the tenants of this province. The Federation of Metropolitan Toronto Tenants' Associations, in its bulletin, which I have in my hand -- and I would note that a leading tenant activist is in the House today -- has acknowledged that it was Ms Poole, the member for Eglinton, who pressed for automatic hearings when tenants applied for rent reduction because of inadequate maintenance. It was Ms Poole who pressed for an automatic hearing when the landlord applied for a capital expenditure allowance. I'm hoping that at the end of this clause-by-clause those will be incorporated, but I can tell you, Mr Chair, that many positive amendments that Ms Poole suggested and put forward were not accepted by this government, particularly the concept of a capital fund, which I believe was extremely important to the tenants of this province.

As I sum up, I want you to know, Mr Chair, that I sent out 15,000 questionnaires in the riding of Oriole. Over 75% of the tenants who responded said that this bill should not be supported unless all the amendments Ms Poole recommended were accepted. In fact, they have not been accepted, and I don't believe that Bill 121, as it now stands, while the principles sound good, will work. I don't believe it's in the interests of tenants. I don't believe it's in the interests of taxpayers. I hope that when we see this new world emerge the NDP government will remember that day in the summer of 1990 and know that it betrayed the tenants. In the next election, in 1995, it will be reminded of those events.

The Chair: Minister, do you wish to reply now or would you prefer to wait? The member of the third party has three minutes and 20 seconds. Minister, would you like to take the floor now?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I thought you had recognized the member from the Conservative Party.

The Chair: No, I gave you the choice.

Hon Ms Gigantes: What happened to him? He just evaporated. Oh, there he is.

I'd be pleased to respond to a couple of the points raised by the member for Oriole. She notes that she represents a riding where 50% of the households are tenant households. I don't know if she knows that the riding of Ottawa Centre is a riding where 69% of the households are tenant households. I'm very pleased to be the representative of the riding of Ottawa Centre.

She described the legislation as missing the target that had been set in the Agenda for People. As I listened again to the words from that document, with some nostalgia for the innocent times that we knew as members of the NDP before September 1990, I realized just how very close the legislation we have brought to this Legislature --

Mrs Caplan: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There's nothing out of order.

The Chair: Point of order.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would remind the minister that in this House she has to tell the truth.

The Chair: Oh, oh. The member for Oriole, please, I want you to withdraw this completely.

Mrs Caplan: I am just --

The Chair: No, please, member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: When the minister attempts to suggest this is anywhere close to their promise --

The Chair: Please, I've asked you to withdraw that remark.

Mrs Caplan: I will withdraw, Mr Chair.

Hon Ms Gigantes: As I listened to her read from that document again and considered the principles that are embodied in this legislation, I thought again how very close this legislation is to what we had talked about in the Agenda for People. The Liberals may laugh, but I believe that as tenants in this province find the benefits of this legislation in place later this year, they are going to feel the kind of security and stability in their rent that we had sought as we went into that election campaign in 1990.

The member for Oriole talks about this legislation being complicated. She notes it has 140 sections. It's not the number of sections in a piece of legislation that makes it complicated. I can certainly agree that there are sections in this bill that are difficult to read, but the principles on which it is based and which make up the operating framework of the legislation are principles that are pretty easy to explain in pretty normal, everyday language.

I don't know how hard the member for Oriole has tried, but certainly I think if she tries harder she's going to find she'll be able to explain to the tenants who live in the riding of Oriole just how elegantly and how directly the pieces of this legislation fit together so they will have protection. The legislation is based on a framework that assures one rent increase a year, as we had suggested in the Agenda for People. It provides a definite limit on the amount of increase each year -- that is, the guideline -- and in cases where there's an application --

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It is very important for correct information to be given to the House. The existing legislation, Bill 51, provided there could be only one rent increase per year, so that is not anything dictated by the Agenda for People.

The Chair: This is not a point of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't wish to get into a side debate, but in fact when the member for Oriole was rereading the Agenda for People, she read out the promise we made that there would be one increase per year, and there is now one increase per year. I was only noting that fact.

There is a definite limit on the amount that a rent can be increased each year. The most it can be is the guideline plus 3%. The extra 3% can only be added to a rent increase if a landlord is able to make a very good argument for the necessity of the kinds of renovations he is undertaking.

Ms Poole: Mr Chair, on a very important point of order: The minister's formula would give tenants a 9% rent increase; inflation is at 2%. That's a difference of 7% from what she promised.

The Chair: This is not a point of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I do very much appreciate your protection of my right to speak in the House.

We have had it suggested by the member for Oriole that this legislation is going to be more expensive to administer than the existing legislation. I do not believe that to be the case and I hope I will be able to provide accounts within the next couple of years, once we've made the transition to the new legislation, that will indicate, given inflation, that we are not into more expensive administration. Certainly it is, as far as I am concerned, legislation that offers many more benefits to those whom it is intended to protect: tenants.

The member for Oriole also again stressed the importance of the fact that this legislation did not provide a semi-judicial process for appeal on a rent determination. I have to remind members that the reason we had to have a semi-judicial appeal process associated with the existing legislation, Bill 51, is that the determination was made by administrative review. The initial round of rent determination was made by administrative review. This legislation provides for an automatic hearing where there's an application by the landlord for an above-guideline increase. We therefore feel that the other sections of the legislation, which will provide for a review by a different person within the rent administration if there's a matter of error, will provide the kind of redress tenants in Ontario would like to see for situations where error arises.

1750

Mrs Marland: Just before I make my final comment on the legislation at this stage of the process I want to place on the record a portion of a letter from the Ontario Natural Gas Association dated May 15, 1992. The letter is addressed to the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes, Minister of Housing.

The first paragraph says:

"I am writing this letter on behalf of the member companies of the Ontario Natural Gas Association (ONGA) to express our serious concerns regarding Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation. In particular, we firmly believe that sections 23 and 24 of the bill represent a real disincentive for property owners and managers to initiate capital improvements which effect savings in energy costs. In our view, such a disincentive is not in the public interest.

"Energy, efficiency and conservation make economic, social and environmental sense."

A further paragraph in this letter reads:

"We regret that we were not aware of the existence of Bill 121 until recently, as we would have appreciated the opportunity to share our views with the standing committee of the Legislature which considered the legislation. However, we would be very interested in meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our concerns in greater detail."

It's signed by Paul E. Pinnington, the president of the Ontario Natural Gas Association. I simply say I hope that this Minister of Housing -- whose staff obviously don't do an automatic circulation of significant legislation that affects different organizations -- will meet with Mr Pinnington and will try to benefit from the knowledge which I'm sure he will convey to her about the importance, economically and environmentally, of energy conservation.

But I think the final thing I want to say today is to quote something our socialist Premier, Bob Rae, has said. I think this more than anything else puts in place exactly why we have the kind of legislation before us that we have today in Bill 121. This is the quote, and I'm starting from the beginning of his quotation marks:

"You make it less profitable for people to own it (rental property). I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple. Eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. There would be a huge squawk...and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'"

That is a quote from the then opposition leader, Bob Rae, as quoted in a pre-election newsletter of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. If you ever wondered what direction this Bob Rae socialist government was on, this quote confirms and eliminates any doubt you ever had about what its ideology is all about in terms of the provision of housing in this province and who pays for it and the fact that Bill 121 is not in the interests of property owners or tenants.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's my understanding that now that we've completed this stage, for all of the matters that have to be decided by a vote we will assume that five members have stood at each step. The recorded votes will take place on Monday after a 10-minute bell.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 53, I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

The first thing on Monday we'll have the recorded votes, as I've just indicated, followed by third reading of Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, with a vote at 5:45.

On Tuesday, June 2, Wednesday, June 3, and the afternoon of Thursday, June 4, we will do third reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. We'll continue committee of the whole and do third reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, and do second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act.

In the morning of Thursday, June 4, we will deal with private members' business: ballot item 11 standing in the name of Mr Henderson and ballot item 12 standing in the name of Mr Wilson, Simcoe West.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Being close to 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1757.