The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon to bring to the attention of the House a very serious situation in my community of Ottawa-Carleton. It's difficult to understand why a community-based program with an excellent reputation and therapeutic education program for vulnerable children with severe emotional problems is at risk once again. Students of M. F. McHugh School suffer from serious psychiatric and behavioural problems.

In August 1991 the Minister of Health said in a letter, "The funding in support of this program is not considered discretionary and is not subject to cutbacks." I urge the Minister of Health to verify this statement she made less than a year ago. She must alleviate the doubts and fears of the parents of the 50 students who are in treatment and whose recovery depends on a guaranteeing of funding for this excellent and essential program. This decision must be made immediately.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today marks the start of National Access Awareness Week, a time when we reflect on the right of disabled persons to full access to education, employment, housing, recreation and transportation. National Access Awareness Week was conceived by wheelchair athlete Rick Hansen as a way to raise society's awareness of barriers to accessibility in order to break down those barriers.

We still have a long way to go before the majority of disabled persons can enjoy the same quality of life as persons without disabilities. The statistics are daunting. For instance, 33% of disabled persons in Ontario have a grade 8 education or less, only 43% are employed and their incomes are 46% lower than those of non-disabled Ontarians.

The government of Ontario, which funds or provides many of the services required by disabled persons, must play a key role in ensuring accessibility. Over the past year there have been some advances in this regard. For example, the Attorney General now operates a toll-free information service for disabled persons who need access to barrier-free courts.

However, there have also been frustrating setbacks. It took a protest rally by disabled persons to convince the Ontario and Metro Toronto governments to cancel funding cuts to Wheel-Trans, Metro's transit system for persons with ambulatory disabilities.

For National Access Awareness Week to work, we need action as well as talk. I hope by this time next year we will have some major achievements to celebrate.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure today to introduce to you representatives from the Scarborough office of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Present in the House today are staff members Florence Wong, Ermina Ko, Debra Ann Smith, Rhonda Underhill-Gray, Dianne Dakers and Bernard Walters; from the volunteer committee we have Robert Jones, Ebrahim Washington, Colin Kressler, James McKinnon, Grace Staal and Muriel Clarke, and volunteers Adrienne Meszaros and Glen Clarke.

The CNIB is a voluntary agency that is dedicated to improving the quality of life and to fostering the independence of blind and visually impaired individuals. This is accomplished through a wide variety of programs.

Rehabilitation teaching helps individuals adjust to their visual impairment and maintain their independence. Counselling and referral services assist individuals in adjusting to the loss of vision. Through career development and employment programs, individuals are encouraged to determine career goals, develop new skills and find the right job. A range of services are provided based on the individual's level of education and experiences. Also, support is provided to employers so that the visually impaired can be accommodated in the workforce.

Through these and other services, blind and visually impaired individuals are encouraged to reach their full potential and participate fully in society. Many of these services are made possible through the hard work of volunteers who work directly with clients, on special committees or fund-raising projects.

Due to the tremendous commitment of many dedicated volunteers and staff, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Ontario Division, was able to serve 3,871 new clients from diversified cultural backgrounds.

Underlying all CNIB activities is the firm belief that the blind and visually impaired, with their individual abilities to function, can be integrated into the mainstream of community life. I applaud the efforts of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in assisting visually impaired individuals to experience life with confidence and dignity.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to turn your attention to the east gallery and meet the members of the CNIB.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): It's really amazing that the province of Ontario up until now has had only one methadone treatment program and that is the Addiction Research Foundation drug therapy program. Mr Speaker, this will really shock you. It's estimated there are 13,000 heroin users in Toronto, many of whom want to get off this habit, but there is no space for all of them who want to get off. There is no space for those who try to get into the methadone treatment program.

The Addiction Research Foundation treats only about 107 persons, and in addition, only a handful of physicians treat about 60 patients. Waiting lists are long, all centres are full and therefore many people give up.

The question we should be asking ourselves is this: How do they maintain their $500-a-day heroin habit? Crime, prostitution, theft, break and enter. Many lead tragic lives of suffering and pain.

I am therefore pleased that the Minister of Health will fund a new program of methadone treatment for heroin addicts. While this can certainly be termed a step in the right direction, we must realize that it is far from adequate. We would expect that the $4.1 million announced for additional treatment programs will soon be used in order to make a significant impact for those who want to break this terrible habit of heroin addiction.

1340

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): On Friday, I had the honour, along with my friends Gary Lavine, a councillor in the city of Owen Sound, and Murray Elston, the member for Bruce, of attending a ceremony at Hillcrest Public School to receive our area's portion of the world's longest petition for a smoke-free planet.

As members will know, Friday was designated No Tobacco Day by the World Health Organization, the same day that the Council for a Tobacco-Free Ontario concluded its province-wide campaign to produce a record-winning petition by tallying local totals.

In my riding, the Grey-Bruce Council on Smoking and Health sponsored the local event in Owen Sound after encouraging all students in grade 6 and up in the region to participate by signing their names. The goal was to encourage health policymakers to reduce access of tobacco to minors and to illustrate our young people's concern about the effects of tobacco on health and on the environment.

I am pleased to report that students in Grey and Bruce gave enthusiastic support to this initiative. They are keen and eager to have their concerns heard, and I commend them on their awareness of tobacco-related health hazards and their dedication and their commitment to a cleaner planet. To illustrate this, I have with me the petition with more than 3,000 signatures from Grey and Bruce, which I am delighted to forward to the Minister of Health.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): The budget outlined some of the short-term initiatives to provide jobs to the people of Ontario. These initiatives are part of the government's long-term job strategy. These measures will help to increase the long-term productivity and security of Ontario's economy by creating meaningful partnerships among industry, labour, government and academia.

Recently, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology announced that he will release the government's industrial policy, which will fully outline the government's approach to building a high-value-added economy. Some of the new initiatives outlined in the budget include a sector partnership fund, a one-stop shopping service for investment and an evaluation program and advisory board for the Ontario investment and worker ownership funds.

These are programs that are aimed at benefiting particularly the small business community, including an initiative named Clearing the Path for Business Success, which will reduce the government paperwork faced by startup businesses.

Clearly the minister is laying the groundwork today for the future, a successful future that will serve the business community and the workers within those communities well into the next century.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Members will know that this week more than 30,000 people from over 160 countries will converge on the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to begin the 1992 Earth Summit.

This conference has raised the expectations of people concerned about the health of our planet that the numerous heads of state can show the leadership necessary to address and provide solutions to the numerous problems which plague our global environment.

This week provides an opportunity for us here to reflect on the environmental performance of the NDP government in Ontario. Unfortunately, the record of this government is appalling. Many Ontarians wonder where the NDP, the party that was to be different, that was truly committed to environmental protection, has gone on some of these following important issues, for example: the environmental bill of rights; the safe drinking water act; the clean air program; municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations, as promised -- there are more -- legislation concerning refillable containers; the issue of exporting garbage to the United States, and increasing vehicle inspection stations in the province.

Ontarians are all concerned about the environment and have every reason to be sceptical, based on the commitments and promises this government has made. Their scepticism is reinforced when they note that the budget of the Ministry of the Environment has been cut by nearly $61 million this year alone.

Protection of the natural environment was the cornerstone promise of the NDP in past election campaigns, yet after 18 months the Minister of the Environment has not brought forward one single piece of legislation under her leadership as Minister of the Environment. This inaction and mismanagement is unacceptable to the people of Ontario.

NORTHERN STATUS FOR PARRY SOUND DISTRICT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On May 20 of this year, the township of Humphrey was advised by the Ministry of Natural Resources that the Humphrey-Rosseau area would now be considered as part of the Muskoka Lakes region for the Ministry's working purposes. As a result, the Humphrey-Rosseau area will be administered from the ministry's Bracebridge office. The District of Parry Sound Municipal Association held its spring meeting on May 4, 1992. At this time, a resolution was unanimously adopted opposing this transfer of jurisdiction.

I want to express my strong support for the resolution of the association and Humphrey and Rosseau's efforts to ensure that they continue to be serviced by the Parry Sound office of this ministry. Both Humphrey and Rosseau, for the ministry's information, are located in the district of Parry Sound, not in the regional municipality of Muskoka.

In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources is the only ministry in the entire province which does not recognize the district of Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario. In 1989 this district was granted northern status for the purpose of all government ministries and programs. Presumably that includes the Ministry of Natural Resources, which still refuses to recognize this northern status. The Parry Sound district is constantly being treated by this particular ministry as part of southern Ontario. We only need to look at the handling in the last few months of aggregate controls and hunting and fishing regulations as well as timber management policies to know that the ministry does not appreciate the difference or accept our northern status.

I wholeheartedly agree with the elected representatives at the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association meeting that the Ministry of Natural Resources is doing a disservice to Humphrey and Rosseau through the transfer of this jurisdiction. I call upon the minister to reverse this decision of his ministry.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Today is June 1, and on June 1 every year outside of our Assembly injured workers from across this province gather to remind us of their plight. These workers have invested their lives and bodies in our economy, and often their recompense, after months of hospital stay with broken backs, takes far too long and goes through a humiliating process for them.

I know particularly the hard work and dedication of the Durham Region Union of Injured Workers. I know from many of them whom I see regularly the kind of situations they are faced with. They are pleased with many of the improvements in service that have come about in the last while through our government. They would like to see a local office for the Workers' Compensation Board in Durham region, of course, but they are pleased with many of the reforms we have been able to do in the services.

There are still, however, many strong concerns about whether those improvements in service will be enough to meet the needs of injured workers in our province and whether their needs for retraining for permanent new jobs will be met with simple changes in how service is offered. I hope we will not fail those injured workers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I had a chance to meet earlier with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party with respect to the continuing participation by the province in the multilateral constitutional process, and I want to make a statement to the House with regard to the process.

Let me repeat again, by way of introduction to the report, that the participation by members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses continued last week. I want to express my gratitude to those who participated: the member for Willowdale, the member for Carleton, the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for York North. Let me say with regard to all their participation, in terms of both the public events and private conversations, that I have deeply appreciated their participation and can only hope it will continue. Members should know that all these members have been very constructive and extremely helpful in terms of pointing out some dangers in the negotiations and some risks in terms of what is being done.

Let me also express my gratitude to my parliamentary assistant, who's been very much involved, particularly in the social charter, across the province, who was there at all the meetings this past week and who has been most helpful to me in presenting the issues to the public.

As well, I express my appreciation again to the Minister of Natural Resources, who also has a responsibility for native affairs.

1350

Perhaps I will save my finest praise for when the process is finally completed, but I would say to the House only that Ontario has been extraordinarily well served and I think Canada has been extraordinarily well served by the minister, whose credibility with aboriginal groups, whose toughness in negotiations and whose goodwill have earned him the respect of everyone in the room. I want him to know how much I personally appreciate his support and his advice on these difficult issues.

The member for St Catharines has always been asking where I've been. If the Liberal Party wants to include him as a member of the delegation, I'd be only too pleased to take his advice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I love the House too much.

Hon Mr Rae: A week ago I presented in this House a statement on the state and the accomplishments to date of the multilateral process for reforming the Constitution. Leaders of the opposition also spoke on the subject, and we agreed that this is a non-partisan issue on which we are all committed to working together on behalf of Ontarians and on behalf of national unity.

I said then that we had an important meeting coming up in Toronto where all delegations would be discussing and negotiating the rough package, which should then go to first ministers and aboriginal leaders in the near future. I also said that this was not the final week of the reform process and that more was going to take place in the coming weeks.

The talks in Toronto were very productive. In particular, they led to historic progress on aboriginal issues. I want to congratulate the Chiefs of Ontario in particular for their role in these talks, as well as the leadership of the Metis community and the native community generally, who have been very heavily involved in these negotiations.

Last week I was not able to tell the House how the process would continue, because it had not yet been decided. I can now report that participants agreed on Saturday, May 30, to get back together for two days in Ottawa next week, on June 9 and 10. We will meet there in the same format: premiers, ministers responsible for constitutional issues and the four aboriginal leaders. We agreed to meet for two more days because we realized that we were still making good progress but that we could make even more if we got a break and some time to think and reflect and to consult others; for example, legislatures and cabinets.

Most of the work has been completed, but what is left to do is very important. Having given the process our best effort up to now, we owe it to Canadians to give it the extra time that might make the difference. In the meantime, officials in the working groups will work on the legal wording and some other details which just could not be finished by Saturday. Officials will also be working on a draft report that will summarize all the provisional agreements reached and the items which remain to be decided. I certainly hope that on June 10 or shortly thereafter we will be able to make this report available to all, so everyone will have a chance to react to it before first ministers and aboriginal leaders meet to finalize it.

À mon avis, il y a essentiellement trois questions qui demeurent en suspens. La première question concerne le Sénat, sur lequel il n'y a toujours pas d'entente quant aux pouvoirs dont il serait doté, ni quant à l'équilibre de sa représentation.

Deuxièmement, il y a l'économie, sur laquelle il restent des étapes importantes à franchir pour renforcer l'union économique, le développement régional et la confiance entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces.

Enfin, troisièmement, il y a la formule de modification de la constitution, parce qu'on a le sentiment que la formule actuelle est trop complexe.

Perhaps I can read those three points in English as well. There are in my view essentially three areas that still remain outstanding: first, the Senate, where there is still no agreement on powers and the balance of representation; second, the economy, where there are important steps that still need to be taken to strengthen the economic union, regional development and lack of trust between the federal government and the provinces, and third, the amending formula for the Constitution, based on a feeling that the current formula is too complex.

As I noted last Monday, the goal of the multilateral process has been to develop a rough package -- and I want to emphasize rough package -- of reform amendments for final consideration by first ministers and aboriginal leaders. Since we are working to develop as much as we can of a full package, not just discrete items one after the other, all the provisional agreements reached so far are subject to review as part of the final package. It is certainly possible that some of the details will be reconsidered in light of the ultimate package.

With this in mind, here are the main items on which conditional consensus has been reached so far. It is very important to stress the provisional nature of all the agreements and also that not all participants are agreed to everything. In fact, I'll be indicating a couple of areas where Ontario continues to take the view that the agreements are not the wisest ones. It doesn't mean we're going to block anything, it simply means that I want to indicate to the House where we have indicated that we take a different view. As I did last week, I want to give the House some sense of the main parameters.

1. Values: There will be an interpretative Canada clause for the entire Constitution. It will refer to our democratic institutions, the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, Quebec's distinct society, linguistic duality, ethnic diversity, ethnic and racial equality, the equality of the provinces within their diverse characteristics and the equality of women and men. There is now provisional agreement on the text of this clause. That took some time, but we think we're almost there. Quebec will be recognized as a distinct society in the charter and in a Canada clause, as will the principle of linguistic duality.

2. Amending formula: There is provisional agreement to discuss two approaches to changing the amending formula with respect to national institutions. These are unanimity and so-called seven and 85.

There is provisional agreement to the principle that existing territories should be able to become provinces solely by an act of Parliament, and on the legal method for doing this.

There is also agreement that upon the admission of one or two new provinces the general amending formula will be changed from two thirds and 50, known as seven and 50, to three quarters and 50. This will ensure that amendment could not be made without the support of at least one western and one eastern province.

Provinces which opt out from transfers of jurisdiction to the federal government will receive fair compensation.

There is agreement with the principle that aboriginal consent be required to future constitutional amendments which directly affect aboriginal people. The constitutional amendment that would express this principle is now substantially drafted and agreed to by the principals.

3. Senate: We have agreed on some things with respect to the Senate, even if only on a provisional basis, and I wanted to share them with the House. There is agreement that the Senate should be elected but that it will not be a confidence chamber. Senators will continue to be eligible to serve as members of the cabinet as a matter of custom.

Senators will be elected on an electoral cycle that is independent of elections to the House of Commons or provincial assemblies. I should point out to the House that Ontario disagreed with this consensus.

Mr Bradley: I would abolish it.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, the member for St Catharines has interrupted to say that he would abolish it. I'm sure that view will be taken into account and I'm sure that'll be a view we'll all regard with interest with respect to his own particular future. Some of us would argue that he's already behaving like a senator.

With respect to revenue and expenditure bills, narrowly defined so as not to include major changes to tax policy, the Senate will have only a 30-day suspensive veto. This means it will have the ability to delay such a bill but not to defeat it.

Legislation that materially affects the French language and culture will require approval by a majority of the Senate and by a majority of francophone senators, once referred to as a double majority.

The Senate will have a role in ratifying the appointment of the governor of the Bank of Canada as well as other key federal appointments, but not appointments to the Supreme Court.

There is provisional agreement that jurisdiction over Senate elections will be federal, that all senators will be elected at the same time and that senators will be elected by a proportional representation method, which would encourage better representation of traditionally underrepresented groups.

Aboriginal representation to the Senate will be guaranteed in the Constitution.

The question of the powers of the Senate and how many senators each province will elect has yet to be resolved.

1400

As I think the House will know from following this, I've continued to express concern about ensuring that Senate representation is seen as being fair and balanced in all parts of the country and that whatever we do will not produce parliamentary deadlock. I will continue to discuss this issue with all interested parties. Any advice members have with regard to this issue would be deeply appreciated by the Premier, I can tell you that right now.

Interjection.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Kill it. Put it out of its misery.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm already hearing different pieces of advice. The Conservatives are saying, "Don't cave," and the Liberals are saying, "Deep-six it." I appreciate those pieces of advice.

Mr Sorbara: One Liberal.

Hon Mr Rae: One Liberal, but what a Liberal.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court should be entrenched in the Constitution.

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

There is support for entrenching in the Constitution the provision of the Supreme Court Act, which specifies that the Supreme Court should be composed of nine members, of whom three must be selected from the civil law bar of Quebec. This item, however, requires unanimity, which it has not yet obtained, for obvious reasons.

There is agreement that aboriginal people should have a role to play with respect to the Supreme Court.

First ministers conferences: A provision will be entrenched in the Constitution to require the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers conference at least once a year. A political accord will specify that territorial governments will be invited to participate in conferences called under this provision and that aboriginal leaders will participate in discussions of any item on the agenda that directly affects aboriginal people.

Aboriginal issues: I want just to say in preface to this section, if I may, that we have made progress on aboriginal issues that far exceeds my expectations of only three months ago. I am personally delighted and very proud of the progress we have made as a country with respect to aboriginal issues. I was enormously pleased that Chief Mercredi took the opportunity on Saturday to express his satisfaction with the progress we are making. We're not there yet, but we really are making great strides.

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

There will be a three-year delay before the inherent right to self-government will be taken to the courts. This period is renewable on the consent of both parties. This will give governments and aboriginal organizations time to make progress in negotiations leading to the implementation of self-government.

Agreement was reached on a process to clarify and implement treaties. The Supreme Court will be guided by a constitutional rule of interpretation that treaties are to be interpreted in a "just, broad and liberal manner" and that their context and spirit and intent will be taken into account.

There will be a constitutional guarantee that the Metis people and Indians living off-reserve will have access to self-government and treaty negotiations. In an effort to further protect this guarantee, the federal government agreed to consider an amendment to the Constitution to include all aboriginal peoples under federal jurisdiction, which would involve a change to section 91.24 of the Constitution.

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

Equalization: There is agreement to extend the constitutional provision on equalization to the territories and to expand the provision to cover "economic infrastructure."

A new subsection will entrench the commitment of governments to the promotion of regional economic development to reduce economic disparities.

The federal government will be required to consult with the provinces on matters related to equalization payments and to provide two years' notice before any changes are made to federal equalization legislation.

Division of powers: There is provisional agreement to recognize and clarify the existing provincial jurisdiction in tourism, forestry, mining, recreation, housing and municipal/urban affairs. Financial arrangements will be determined through a political accord.

Il y a entente provisoire pour reconnaître la formation professionnelle comme champ de compétence exclusif des provinces et que la responsabilité de l'établissement des programmes sera transférée aux provinces, en même temps qu'une compensation financière.

Il y a entente provisoire pour reconnaître la culture comme champ de compétence des provinces, tout en reconnaissant et en maintenant la responsabilité du gouvernement fédéral en ce qui concerne les institutions culturelles d'envergure nationale, y compris les institutions qui transfèrent des fonds à des organismes ayant des particuliers dans tout le Canada.

Opting out with compensation from new national cost-shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction will be possible if a province establishes a program to achieve national objectives.

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

There will be a constitutional mechanism to ensure that certain agreements between governments will be protected from unilateral change.

A new mechanism will be introduced in the Constitution to allow Parliament and provincial legislatures to delegate to each other jurisdiction over certain matters for a period of up to five years. This provision will be carefully delimited, and provinces will be accorded equal treatment. Ontario, I have to tell you, expressed strong concerns about this provision. If anyone wants to ask me why, I'll be glad to answer.

There is agreement to the principle that changes to the division of powers in this round should not adversely affect aboriginal and treaty rights.

Mr Speaker, let me say by way of conclusion, and I appreciate very much this opportunity again to update the House, I've said that whatever the outcome of the week of negotiations in Toronto may be, it's fair to say the multilateral process has been a success. I noted that the constitutional reform process, of which it was the latest phase, was moving forward and there was every reason to be optimistic. This is even more true today, as we plan for the meeting in Ottawa next week.

Our challenge remains to construct a package that is inclusive of provinces, of regions, of collectivities and of individuals. I will try my best to be part of an ultimate resolution that ensures that all can see themselves reflected, that no one feels left out, keeping in mind of course what's best for Ontario, but even more important, and indeed most important, what is best for Canada. I've said on a number of occasions that Ontario's only bottom line is Canada and that our negotiating position is based on a very strong view that whatever we do has to be primarily, and most important of all, in the best interests of the whole country.

This is a week for discussion and consultation. I've begun the process by discussing a bit about the issues with the leaders of the opposition. I continue to look forward to their advice and I would hope for the continuing commitment and support of the whole House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Since the Premier has gone over the time limit, we'll add two minutes to each of the opposition parties, so each of you will have a total of seven minutes for a response. First, the official opposition.

1410

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We appreciate the update the Premier has brought to the House this day, as he had promised he would last week. Obviously we have all been following the events of last week with a great deal of interest, at times concern, but also feel to some degree heartened by the progress that's been made. I've asked the member for York North, who has been very much part of those discussions, if he would share with the House our perspective on both the progress and the process itself.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to thank the Premier for the statement he has provided to the Legislature today. I think it is very important that not only we as legislators but indeed the people of the province have a sense of where the areas of agreement are emerging and what some of the issues are where there is still a great deal of discussion, because this has been, over the last year or year and a half, a process that has had many parts, and I think that has been extremely important.

Whether in terms of our own select committee, which sat and provided two reports, the Spicer commission, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee or the federal task forces that took place throughout the country, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion among and between Canadians, and while this last and most recent round has, out of need, I believe, had to be somewhat more private, none the less the reporting which I think has gone on, both in the press and by Mr Clark at the end of each meeting and again today and last Monday, is important. We must know what is being discussed and where the areas of agreement are.

Perhaps speaking somewhat from a distance as an observer who, with my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, has been able to sit in and participate, I would also like to note that this week is very important for all those who have been involved in these discussions and in these negotiations.

I would like to say to my fellow Ontarians and to Canadians that I believe very firmly that the people around the table, both elected and officials, are striving very hard to reach agreement. One of the things I want to note is that where there is difference of opinion -- and there often is difference of opinion -- it is based on strongly held positions that do need to be advanced. It is out of that kind of discussion, I believe very firmly, that we will ultimately see a solution to this particular problem and that we Canadians will be able to accept a new Constitution.

Sometimes, when we talk about constitutions, I think one of the things that is important is to step back from some of the jargon words. I know I've learned a new one, "justiciability," which I can just about pronounce, but if anyone is confused I suggest he or she speak to the former Attorney General, who will be able to define exactly what that means. But there is all kinds of terminology, which frankly puts people off.

I believe it's very important that as Canadians we say, as the Premier said at the end of his remarks, that our most important focus and objective here is to ensure that our country, Canada, emerges from this round of discussion stronger than it is today, that in fact we find a way to include Quebec within Confederation, that we are able to go down the road to meet the concerns that have come forward through western alienation, that all these different issues, including the aboriginal issue which, I believe very strongly, as the Premier has said, this week in particular showed a real sense of direction -- I think everyone in the room at the time of the discussion of treaties was struck by the give and take and by the very determined discussion. When what I think is a real consensus emerged there was an immediate reaction to that with applause throughout the room, because there was a sense that as Canadians we had done something that was important, that needed to be done and that emerged.

J'aimerais dire aussi que je pense que c'est très important pour la communauté francophone de notre province de bien comprendre ce que tous les gouvernements ont dit sur l'article de la dualité linguistique. On comprend fort bien les inquiétudes de la communauté francophone vis-à-vis la dualité linguistique.

Je pense, s'il y a une chose qui est sûre, que les gouvernements de ce pays ont dit clairement qu'il est très important pas simplement de protéger les droits linguistiques, mais d'assurer que la communauté francophone de notre province va avoir l'occasion de s'épanouir, donc, pour la communauté francophone comme pour les autres minorités dans notre pays, qu'on va voir du progrès à cause de ces discussions.

It's also very important to underline, again as the Premier did, the importance for Ontario of a strong Canada and a strong Confederation, and the importance for Ontario to work towards a strong economic union. It seems to me that if there is one thing we as Ontarians feel very determined about, it is that at the end of this process we will have a federal government that will be able to act in the common interest. Surely our common interest is to develop an economic market within this country in which we can all participate and where there will be a free flow of goods, services and people. I think there has been heartening progress. While there still needs to be much more discussion, that is something I believe is important to us.

If we keep this kind of focus -- and I believe we will, and certainly we are going to be working on our side of the House with the government to ensure that this round of discussion is successful -- then I think the final question we all have to sort out is how we then go and speak to our own people and how we ensure that the people of this province and this country will be able to have a say in support of the eventual agreement that is reached.

But if we keep in mind that what we are doing here is not for governments but for the people of this country, if all of us can keep that focus, then I believe that over the next couple of weeks, hopefully within a month, we'll be able to have a package we can put forward to the people of this country and then move on from the Constitution and get on with all those other things that are so very important to our lives.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to thank the Premier again for the update today in his office and for his efforts on behalf of the province of Ontario. Indeed, as I said last week, my sense is that Ontarians want a deal. They want this Constitution issue behind them, not at any cost or price, obviously, but with some degree of confidence that the goodwill of the people of this country is going to ultimately move on.

I want to congratulate again the member for Willowdale, the member for Parry Sound and the member for Carleton for their significant advice and attendance at these meetings and liaising with others across the country and former politicians, officials and Canadians who are playing a role in these discussions.

I briefly do want to remention a couple of points. I indicated to the Premier one of the discussions I had this week with Mr Horsman from Alberta. I don't believe I'm betraying any confidence in saying that he continued to impress upon me that it was the people of Alberta who were going to ratify, who were going to decide on what their leaders and Canadians had advanced on their behalf. In advancing Alberta's position with me, I reiterated to him that I had every expectation that ultimately either the Prime Minister or the Premier of this province would insist that Ontarians be given the same right as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and British Columbia. I call on the Premier today to make that commitment to Ontarians for two reasons.

One is so that we are very clear that while we are negotiating that it's not the 130 of us, it's not the three parties, it's not the party leaders, it's not the Premier, but it is indeed the people of Ontario whose positions we're taking forward. We invested millions of dollars in ascertaining those positions in consultations. Let's give them some teeth. I have great confidence in the people of this province, as I do in Canadians, to put the national interest up front. But I think it would be very beneficial if, Premier, you would make that commitment today, that if there is not going to be a national referendum -- I'm not saying a referendum for a referendum's sake -- then indeed Ontario voters will have the same rights as the rest of Canadians. I think that will be important as we're negotiating as well.

Second, on Senate reform I want to reiterate that there's been a lot of discussion. We've all agreed now with "equal" -- I'm sorry; we've all agreed with "elected." Pardon me for that Freudian slip. We're hoping that we agree on the definition of "equal" with "elected." It seems to be to be a complicated formula for election. None the less, there's been some consensus on that. Ultimately the discussion has been taking place on "effective." There has been some indication that there's a tradeoff between effective and whether it will be equitable or elected. My growing sense, from the discussions I've had from talking with Canadians and indeed with Ontarians, is that if the Senate is not effective, there's no tradeoff. If it's not effective, scrap it.

If we're going to have an elected Senate and we're going to have an effective Senate, let's settle that. Then there is no question. There is no question that we're going to have an equitable formula because I tell you right now -- and, Premier, I think you've advanced the case; I agree with you and I continue to advance it myself -- that a province with a population of 140,000, in an effective way in managing the affairs of this country, is not going to have the same voice and effectiveness as 10 million Ontarians. Those are the facts of life. As soon as we understand that, we can get on with resolving this.

If it's to be effective, and I think it should be, then let's say so. Let's get on with that. If we cannot agree with that, then let's scrap it until such time as we can. I advance that position as well, Premier.

1420

There are a couple of questions that have arisen from the discussions, and I ask the Premier to think about it as we're making other deals along the way.

The issue of native self-government: Most I've talked to can understand what that means in a land-based situation. What that means for those natives who have a land base, they understand future negotiations; it may involve more land base. But no one I've talked to at this point in time, Premier, is having great difficulty coming to grips with what native self-government means for those with no land base, for Metis, for my next-door neighbour, for those who are not living on a designated land base, whatever size and whatever area. What does that mean? There is great concern that there will be, perhaps, three years from now, or three years post-deal, a substantial difference of opinion and expectation among natives as to what it is that self-government means to them. I would hope that while the other discussions are going on we clarify that -- we have ongoing working groups on that -- and we bear that in mind when making deals on the other issues, saying: "Well, we really don't know what it means. We'll let the courts decide."

The difficulty as well I have with not knowing is that if, as I believe, there's going to be a national referendum, then that uncertainty allows those who have maybe very far-reaching and silly interpretations without some definition to advance them with more legitimacy than I think we would like.

I offer those suggestions in the same spirit I and my caucus and my members are prepared to continue to work with the Premier. We want a deal. We want Canada. We want the people to have the opportunity, obviously, ultimately, with great confidence that they too want this Canada that has been so good to us.

I conclude with this. I attended this weekend a 50th wedding anniversary and remarriage of the Ledoux family and the Foisy family in the small town of Astorville, of about 500 people, Corbeil, in the member for Parry Sound's riding. I tell you, with the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren and the coming together of those two families, how they have now spread out across this great country and they all came together, if ever there was a sense of Canada, I saw it this weekend, and Canadians want to keep this country together, Mr Premier.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I seek unanimous agreement for statements from the three parties on the Earth Summit.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have agreement? Agreed.

EARTH SUMMIT

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Can we imagine a world where going outside is dangerous to our health? No, this is not the setting of a futuristic vision; it's a very real possibility. Daily we are reminded of the dangers of ozone depletion. We see our lakes and rivers becoming sewers, our air slowly becoming contaminated, and wonder, where will it end?

This week world leaders and environmentalists will meet to determine the fate of the environment. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro will play on our fears about the environment, world politics and the economic realities of saving the one thing all nations have in common: the Earth.

Since 1972 and the first Earth Summit, the intent to save the Earth has never been so strong or so necessary. In the last 20 years the Earth has lost over 200 million hectares of trees. The world's farmers have lost over 500 million tonnes of topsoil. In the last 20 years over 100 million species have vanished from the world's rain forest. Lakes, rivers and seas have become so polluted even industry cannot use the water. Population growth is out of control and is expected to double by the year 2050.

These facts are the ingredients for our extinction. Can anything be done in light of the significant odds against us? It can be done, but in the words of Maurice Strong, it's a herculean task.

It is our hope the summit will conclude at least three things. First, the importance of world cooperation is tantamount to future environmental agendas. The developed countries must subscribe to the reality that their abundance of financial and technological resources must be shared with developing countries. In part, this is important because developing countries like Brazil are keepers of some of the world's valuable resources, yet their economic development hinges on these resources. Is it fair for us to impede their development and force millions of people to remain living in poverty?

There are several countries in the world about to break into the industrialized age. This would put further stress on our environment and especially on global warming. In other countries, industries are employing outdated technology that threatens the environment. Because of financial restrictions these industries cannot be refitted with proper environmental safeguards. Global cooperation between the developed and developing nations will hopefully lead to safe and environmentally friendly development.

Second, all countries must address the economic reality of saving the Earth. Parts of the Soviet Union are cesspools of toxins and carcinogens caused by years of pollution by industries without concern about the environment. Who will pay for the cleanup? Countries that have little or no economic base cannot afford the huge financial cost. Yet the cost is more than money; it is lives. Not just theirs, but ours, the people of the Earth. Pollution has no boundaries. The cost must be part of a global initiative where developed nations must recognize the interdependence of these less fortunate countries. President Bush has told the world that the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation. Regardless of what is negotiated at the summit, if a green agenda based on global cooperation and economic assistance is not established, all our lifestyles will be affected.

Finally and most important, I would like to see the Earth Summit end on a note of optimism and action. It is the fear of many people that the summit will prove that the state of the world's environment is worse than anyone ever imagined. If the Earth Summit concludes with all nations reaching an agreement on an agenda with a plan, a realistic time frame and a commitment to act, the summit will be a success. We cannot expect miracles; we can expect a global proactive commitment.

On behalf of our caucus we wish all nations participating in the summit patience and understanding. We send them our thoughts and concerns. We wish the delegates and the environment good luck. We are counting on their actions. The race to save the Earth has begun.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to join my colleague the member for Markham, and I understand the Minister of the Environment will be making some comments about the Earth Summit that is commencing in two days' time in Rio as well.

Certainly there are a number of issues we could touch on, and the member for Markham has listed a number of pertinent issues that are of concern to men and women around the world, but what I would like to do for a few moments is focus on what we can do here in Ontario, because each and every citizen, indeed each and every person, whether he or she be old or young, has a contribution to make. Those of us in this Legislative Assembly also have a responsibility to deal with environmental issues.

As over 30,000 people will gather -- including heads of states, diplomats, bureaucrats, representatives from non-government organizations, aboriginal groups, environmental activists, many of the environmental organizations that are active here in Ontario and Ontarians -- in Rio this week and next, there are a number of issues that are on the table and up for discussion that will dramatically affect us and, more important or as important, those who come after us. The world and the legacy we leave for the young men and women of this world can be impacted by what takes place in Rio de Janeiro in the coming days.

1430

I come back again to what we can do here in the province of Ontario. Many environmentalists and journalists have been critical of the process and are sceptical, and perhaps it's far from a perfect process. But those of us involved even in the process that takes place here on a much smaller scale understand that nothing is ever perfect, when those of us who are after all fallible put our hands and our minds to it. It's not perfect but it's something that can be done. I think we take pride as Canadians that Mr Morin-Strom is heading up the Earth Summit, a former Canadian now residing in southern Colorado who has really dedicated himself to this initiative literally for years to see the fruition of his dream.

I noted today, as I was travelling and picked up a copy of a US publication, that environmental issues are back as the number one issue in terms of concern for people in the United States and Japan. I was curious to note that in many European countries, France and Belgium, it's a close second. I'm not sure where it ranks right now in terms of polling in Ontario but I know the reality is that it's slipped off the current agenda in terms of what people are seeing as important issues. We have to remember that the economy will come and go; there will be cycles to it; there will be things that will happen, but the world we live in and what we do today will have impact for generations to come.

The minister will doubtless be making some announcements and speaking about what the government of the province of Ontario will want to do. I want to draw back and pay some tribute to my friend the member for St Catharines, the former minister, for some of the initiatives taken here in the province that received a tremendous amount of support from people on all sides of the House; simply to say that's it a beginning and we have to move on and we have to do that here as well.

I think of the MISA program that was undertaken, and wait to see what we'll do here in Ontario to continue that; the Countdown Acid Rain program; the resolution sponsored by my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin; those kinds of private members' initiatives that have been brought here. I think of my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre, who brought forward an initiative a few weeks ago. Those are the kinds of things we can each do that impact us globally.

The focus this week will be on what's taking place in Rio on a worldwide basis, but there's much that can be done here. Quite frankly, we are waiting for some of the initiatives promised by this government in the 1990 campaign, and we look forward to seeing those. I again draw to the attention of the minister -- I'm sure she will comment about it -- that there's much we can do and we need to be getting on with the job at hand.

People say, "What can we do?" I conclude my comments with this as we reflect on the Earth Summit of 1992. People say, "What difference does it make what I do as one individual?" I conclude with this brief illustration, if you'll allow me, Mr Speaker.

If we were to run outside in the midst of a snowstorm and grab a small snowflake in our hands, it would disappear very quickly, but enough of them put together shut down airports, stop traffic and stop cities. I think that's how we have to begin to think in terms of what we do environmentally. Each and every thing we can do, as small as it may seem to be, collectively can make a major impact and begin to turn around the way we think, the way we act, the way we live, the way we use the resources that have been entrusted to us; not given to us to use, but entrusted to us to leave for those who come after us.

As our colleagues and our representatives, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of the Environment, Mr Charest, attend, we can only hope that world leaders, men and women concerned with the world we live in, understand that environmental concerns know no jurisdictions, know no partisan element and that we all have a role to do. We wish them well and wish them success. We see a brighter future for the world we leave our children.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of the Environment): Mr Speaker, I'm glad to join the member for Markham, the member for Brampton North and indeed with all members of this House in marking the opening of the conference at Rio that begins this week. I share with them their concern about the state of our planet and their hopes for ours and for future generations that in fact Rio will begin to mark a turning point. I'm optimistic that it will. I think the conference will succeed in bringing the world's attention to some of the most important challenges facing all of us.

The world is at a crossroads in how it deals with the global environment and with economic issues, and UNCED signals that it is beginning to turn in the right direction. But I think the real test of the Earth Summit will be the concrete results that follow: the actions adopted by each country to follow through on the important decisions and the treaties agreed to at Rio.

Ontario has worked with the federal government in developing Canada's position for the conference, its support for climate change and biodiversity treaties. As a member of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, I was very much a part of those discussions. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment will be represented at Rio by the Honourable Gilbert Clements, the Minister of the Environment for Prince Edward Island.

Ontario responded very positively to the report of the Brundtland commission and its call for the development of a sustainable economy. It's been a non-partisan issue, as my colleagues have said, and I commend the efforts of the previous Ontario government in setting up the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. The round table has brought together cabinet ministers, industrialists and environmentalists to develop a strategy for sustainable development. Ontario is taking action on several fronts to promote sustainability. There are many specific actions I could point to, and I acknowledge that there are many more to be done, but I think what's important is that we in this province have acknowledged the importance of sustainable development and in many cases are leading other industrialized areas of the world in making a commitment to do just that.

Rio was not an end in itself. The preparation for the conference has, in my opinion, contributed to increased awareness and understanding of some of the issues that are going to be discussed there and of the threat there is to life on this planet. To me it marks a beginning, not the end of a process but a beginning, where all nations are committing themselves to taking the necessary actions to preserve our planet. It is what follows Rio that will really begin to make a difference for future generations.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JACK LAYTON

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I would like to raise the issue of the appointment of Jack Layton, NDP member and former NDP alderman, as a consultant and facilitator for the review of the Public Hospitals Act of the Minister of Health's office.

It was just last year, in the November 19 fiscal review statement, that this government froze consultant hirings. In its recent budget the government reiterated its concern to cut government spending by some $3 billion, in part through cutting or controlling the costs of hiring new consultants. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he has created a brand-new consulting job specifically for Jack Layton. It may in fact be the only real new job this government has created, but why start with a make-work project for Jack Layton at some $300 a day? I wonder what has happened to the decision not to hire new consultants.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the leader of the official opposition raising the issue, because I would like to clarify a number of points that I think have been misinterpreted by the press and by the opposition critics in their comments in the media.

Mr Layton has been hired on to the staff of my office. This is not a consulting position that has been hired by the ministry. The bureaucracy, the Ministry of Health, has had nothing to do with this hiring. During the course of work with my political staff in my office with respect to the organizing of public hearings around the task force recommendations on the Public Hospitals Act, we determined that we wanted to do some organizing to ensure that municipal councils, district health councils, labour councils, community groups, minority networks and others were provided with full background information and organized to be able to participate effectively.

The staffing in my office is such that in our staffing envelope we had additional moneys available to hire more staff. Rather than a permanent position, we have hired up to 30 days' work. We've hired someone who in terms of his background -- having been a chair of a board of health, having been a municipal councillor and having been on a hospital board -- will I think help and facilitate us.

I want to assure people that this is not a civil service position. This is not a consulting position to the ministry. This is a political staff position within my own office. The responsibility for the hiring of this individual lies directly with me.

1440

Mrs McLeod: The minister's answers provide a whole new set of questions. If it's a political staff position, we would wonder how typical it is for political staff positions to come on board at about $300 a day. The minister has not denied that that is the salary figure being paid.

Our question is raising the issue of a consultation process and why this particular individual was appointed to carry out a consultation. Let me direct the minister to a concern we have, an increasing concern about the way in which this government stage-manages consultation on virtually every issue it carries out a consultation on. That's the real issue we want to get at with this appointment today. We believe this government has stage-managed the budget consultations, we know the government has stage-managed the Labour Relations Act hearings, we know the government is stage-managing the child care consultations and it seems obvious to us that the appointment of Jack Layton is another attempt to stage-manage this particular consultation on the Public Hospitals Act.

I ask the minister how the Ontario public can possibly expect to have a fair and independent review of the Public Hospitals Act when Jack Layton has been appointed to control the hearings.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I think I need to correct the leader of the official opposition. I welcome the opportunity to do so. She's used words such as "control the process" and "run the process." The hearings themselves will be held by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Simcoe Centre, and a number of MPPs in those areas will be involved. What we wanted to assure ourselves of, the opposition and the government, is that we have full participation by a full range of people from the community in these hearings.

One of the things I find really amazing and objectionable is to hear the member opposite call this stage management. We know we will have tremendous assistance from the hospitals in this province during this consultation process. In fact, the Ontario Hospital Association is being of great assistance at this point in time in arranging forums for its own hospital members to discuss this and to organize their response so we will have an effective voice from the hospital sector.

In the press release when we announced the consultation, we wanted to ensure that we had participation from consumers and other community organizations. I believe it is a responsibility of government when it consults to enable people to participate in that consultation. Aboriginal groups, women's groups, minority groups -- we are going to have two information sessions to provide them with the background and ability to effectively communicate.

One of the things we heard over the years when the opposition was in government was that consultation was a sham. To say to people to come out and consult without providing them with the information, the background and the ability to consult is not consultation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I believe what we're doing is empowering those groups and individuals, and the fact that I need assistance on my political staff to do that I think is entirely defensible.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The minister will know that the Public Hospitals Act governs 223 hospitals in the province. People who are affected by that act should have the right to feel that there is independence and no self-interest involved in the way public hearings are conducted in respect to a review of the act.

Let's talk about this consultation process. The consultation Mr Layton has been brought in to head up, at $300 a day, includes six one-day hearings in various parts of the province and one two-day session in Metro Toronto, as well as a few information seminars "to help groups make submissions on the new act."

I am asking the Minister of Health again, why does she need Jack Layton to be hired at $300 a day when she has perfectly qualified, independent people within the Ministry of Health with expertise in the field and no vested interest, political or otherwise? She has 12,000 people in her ministry from whom to choose. Why did she choose Jack Layton?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, let me make it very clear. This individual has not been hired to come in and head up a consultation process. He has been hired on to my staff in my office to facilitate the work of my office in coordinating and trying to assist communities in participating in this process.

The member opposite talks about independence and vested interest. Let me tell you, I have a vested interest. My vested interest in this process is ensuring that communities can participate in this very important process of rewriting the Public Hospitals Act and that the issues of community accountability are heard from and participated in by all the various interests, not only by interests that are organized at this point in time. From what I've heard from hospital boards, the way in which they struggle to try and be represented, to bring people on board, I think they also would like to see this kind of facilitation done.

We have a situation where we have a task force report and highly technical recommendations. We believe that to facilitate the community's involvement in this, to come forward, to be able to respond in an effective way, we need to help and facilitate that. I think that's the responsibility of my office. In terms of the number of people I have available right now and the workload of the staff, I required additional assistance --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have the staffing dollars available in my office. Again, I'll say it is my decision as the minister to hire an additional staff person on my staff to do this and I think Mr Layton fills the bill very well.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: We'll take a little time over the balance of the day to determine whether there is a precedent for hiring a political staffer to carry out a supposedly independent public consultation.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In my second question, however, I would like to return to the Premier with a question we raised in the House last week. Last week I asked the Attorney General whether he was satisfied with the mediated settlement that kept an employee of the Ontario courts and the Belleville judge who was reportedly sexually harassing her in separate parts of the building and provided for no disciplinary measures to be taken. The Attorney General did not answer my question regarding this specific case except to confirm, as we already knew, that a special committee of judges, not the Ontario Judicial Council, had worked out this arrangement.

I ask the Premier if he is familiar with this particular case and, given his government's commitment to zero tolerance of sexual harassment, is he satisfied with its resolution?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is an important question and I'm afraid I can't answer it because I am not familiar enough with the facts to give an answer, but I will certainly take the question as notice.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I can share with the Premier some of the details of the case, then. It's our understanding that the allegations of sexual harassment were never denied and yet the judge in question was not disciplined because, as I understand it, only the Ontario Judicial Council can discipline judges.

The resolution of this situation has effectively placed the victim of sexual harassment under house arrest. This in fact followed a very long period in which she was subject to personal inconvenience and considerable anguish. We wonder what message this sends to other women who are being harassed, and find that it's no wonder, if this is the way they're responded to, so many of them hesitate to bring forward their concerns.

Why did this serious allegation not go to the Ontario Judicial Council, which is empowered to discipline judges? I ask the Premier if he will see to it that an internal inquiry is carried out as to the way this specific case was handled to determine whether any further steps needs to be taken.

Hon Mr Rae: As I say, I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not sufficiently familiar with all the facts to be able to answer with the fullness I would like. I would only say to the honourable member that, obviously, with respect to the conduct of judges who are politically independent of the government, the decisions taken with regard to any particular incident do not involve a decision by the government as such. If the member says the facts, such as she describes them, give rise to concern on her part, I'm sure the facts as she's described them are worthy of an independent review which I'm sure the Attorney General will want to conduct, along with others. We will then endeavour to make an effective response --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): He's the one who dumped Mary Hogan.

Hon Mr Rae: If I could be permitted by the member for St George-St David to respond to what I've taken to be a very serious question, I'm sure a view he shares, I will respond on behalf of the government, as will the Attorney General.

Mrs McLeod: I'm clearly at a disadvantage as well in pursuing this question with the Premier, other than to express a certain degree of surprise that, having raised the question in the House last week which had already been addressed with a significant article in the Law Times which was subsequently picked up by some other media outlet, the Premier was not made aware of what we consider to be a very serious question which has not yet been satisfactorily resolved.

When the Attorney General responded to the question last week, he responded as the Premier has in terms of the independence of the judiciary and a broad review of the Ontario Judicial Council. We do not feel that response really addresses the specifics of this case and wonder -- surely the Attorney General and the Premier are not suggesting that the independence of the judiciary includes the inability to question sexual harassment, which has absolutely nothing to do with their legal decisions.

Our understanding is that the Attorney General could have referred this specific case to the Ontario Judicial Council. The ministry apparently recommended to the individual that it would take too long to go through that route and she should settle for a mediation.

For the Premier's awareness, although I suspect he is aware of this, when a physician is accused of sexual harassment, the complaint's heard by a panel of both physicians and laypeople with an appeal to a higher board composed only of laypersons.

Our question, then, is why should members of the judiciary have their cases dealt with quietly by a special committee composed entirely of judges rather than by the judicial council which has been established for this purpose? I would ask the Premier if he will ensure that steps will be taken to be sure that the authority of the judicial council is not bypassed in any future case.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member asks perfectly fair, reasonable and proper questions which are worthy of an answer. They're worthy of an answer not only from the government but from all those who would be affected by such an incident. The questions she raised with respect to the comparison of the conduct of anyone in public office with those who are professionals, such as doctors, I don't take as rhetorical; I take them as extremely serious. I think they're worthy of a full review by the Attorney General and I will discuss it with him after question period. I take the member's questions very seriously in this regard.

1450

JACK LAYTON

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to ask the Premier a question. On September 15 in the Toronto Star, Premier, you said: "We want to appoint people of ability and talent without any regard to their previous political affiliation. The public has to have the sense that the system is on the up and up." Premier, in giving a government job -- not an agency, not a board, not a commission, not a political appointment, but indeed a function normally performed by a civil servant -- to Mr Layton, do you believe that's giving the public the sense, to which you committed yourself on September 15, that the system is on the up and up?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Since the decision was made by the Minister of Health, I'm going to let her answer the question.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Once again, I would like to assure the members that this is not a civil service job or a job that I see as normally a function of the civil service. This is work that on other occasions I would have people on my political staff carry out. This is a political staff position. I made a decision to hire someone else on a contract to assist us on our political staff. It doesn't surprise me at all, therefore, that the person would be a political individual.

I think it's important that we understand, with respect to hiring people for their abilities and not giving consideration to their backgrounds, that that works both ways. Mr Layton has entirely credible credentials on this issue to be able to assist us. With respect to the job that needs to be done in my office, I think it's an entirely appropriate decision, one which I've made and one which I take full responsibility for.

Mr Harris: The minister insists it is important that this job be a political appointment. I view your statements to us today, both to the leader of the Liberal Party and to myself, as a slap in the face to 90,000 competent civil servants in this province, as a slap in the face to the $500 million in salaries your ministry now spends on civil servants in the Ministry of Health. In fact, there are 48 pages in this new and expanded phone book since the Liberals and the NDP socialists took over this province and substantially enlarged the bureaucracy.

I would ask you this, Madam Minister: Why is it you have said in this House twice now in response to questions that it's important that a position to seek the input -- unpartisan, unvarnished, I hope -- of the public be a political position on the minister's personal political staff, as opposed to an unbiased, unpolitical position by the very competent, talented and non-partisan civil service staff you have in your ministry? Can you explain that to me?

Hon Ms Lankin: It's the first time I've heard the leader of the third party defend the civil service. I'm glad to hear he's finally caught on that there it is a very large, dedicated and very professional group of people, a group of people I have defended very often in the past in this House.

The consultation process and the development of proposals for the government's consideration of the reform to the Public Hospitals Act is being headed up by a group of civil servants. In fact, the head of our legal counsel, Gilbert Sharpe, is the person who's responsible for the overall overseeing of this process.

In the course of any interaction with the public and with the civil service, there is a role for members of the minister's staff to be working on these issues. Quite frankly, the fact that I have a staffing envelope as a minister -- as do others, as have other governments -- the ability to hire people on to our political staff to assist us with development of issues, is entirely consistent with past practice. I am acting on that. I have hired this individual.

As I said, I don't see that this is at all skewing or manipulative. I would say quite frankly, to remind people that we are the government, that we are attempting to raise issues, that we are attempting to facilitate consultation in a way that hasn't been done before, I think it's entirely appropriate and I will continue to defend --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: I would say to the minister that never, ever has anyone heard me run down the most competent Ontario civil service, which was handed over to incompetent management in 1985 -- never. I question the management and the direction, yes, but not the civil service.

Madam Minister, in the last six months you have created and hired six new people for six new departments in your own political staff. For equity issues you hired Shelley Acheson, a brand-new position, a new appointment; consumer health, Patricia Bishop, a badly needed new position, a new appointment as a special assistant; new special assistant Larry Corea, mental health; Lin Grist, long-term care policy; Andrea Knight, community and public hospitals, and Dan Leckie, institutions. Six new positions, six new political appointments as special assistants to your office.

I would ask you this: Is none of them, particularly Dan Leckie, hired as a special assistant for institutions, capable of providing the kind of input necessary to gerrymander or do whatever it is the NDP wants to do with these hearings that you had to go out and spend another 300 bucks a day to hire Mr Layton?

Hon Ms Lankin: I find it very interesting to describe the positions of special assistants as new positions. Every single government and every single ministry and every single minister has had political staff special assistants. What we have done is assign certain areas of policy and delineated that so people out there know, if they want to call about an issue, which of my political staff to contact because the areas they work on are delineated. It is really a misrepresentation to suggest that those are new positions that have never been in place before.

The people who are in those positions I think are very competent. Right now we are in a situation, with the level of work that is involved in terms of policy development in the ministry, with all the issues we have to handle, that we are required to have additional assistants.

I think this has very little to do with the number of political staff and what they do in my office. I think this has everything to do with the opposition trying to make a partisan issue out of Mr Layton doing legitimate work on political staff in my office.

Mr Harris: Why doesn't the minister just say: "Look, Premier, if you want to look after him, hire him along with Piper and McClellan in your office. Don't contaminate the civil service with all these people you want me to hire."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, we hear that you will be introducing your ill-conceived labour proposals some time this week. Despite the fact that I have asked you repeatedly, on many occasions, and you have thus far refused to table any impact data on employment, on workers, on the number of jobs and the quality of those jobs in this province in conjunction with your labour proposals, I would ask you one more time: When you introduce your new proposals, whatever they contain, will you table an impact study on the workers of this province at the same time as you introduce your legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member can wait until we table our bill in the House and he can see what's there at that time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, member for St George-St David.

Mr Harris: We on this side of the House and across this province -- indeed, many card-carrying union members are stopping me in the street or calling me or writing, asking what the motivation is for this legislation. Given that workers are hearing that there are going to be even fewer job opportunities for them, given that workers are being told that their rights to a secret ballot and to many of the things they hold sacred and dear -- whether there should be a union, certification, strike vote -- and that these rights are being taken away from them, they are constantly asking me, "What is the motivation?"

I would ask you this, Mr Minister: Would you not agree with me that tabling an impact study would, once and for all, help to settle the issue of motivation? Is it for workers? Is it for the card-carrying union members? Is it in the interests of this province or is it a payback to Bob White and the union bosses who keep you people in office?

1500

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think we just heard the sick kind of remark about workers that we've been getting from the leader of the third party all along. The intent of the legislation is clear, and that is to improve the labour relation climate between workers and business in the province.

Mr Harris: The Fram workers, affiliated with the CAW in Stratford, recently voted the CAW out. They voted the union out in their workplace in Stratford. Mr Mittick, the CAW's director of organizing, said this in response to the democratic right of the workers who, with a bigger majority than they voted to accept the union a few years earlier, voted to end that affiliation with CAW: "That is exactly why the government's proposed labour law reforms are needed, that a ban on anti-union petitions, ie a ban on anybody who wants to speak out against forming the union, during organizing drives would go a long way towards developing healthier labour relations inside plants." What he means is that if you can shut up anybody opposed, any worker who does wish to speak against joining a union, you have a better chance of unionizing.

I would ask you this, Mr Minister: This is what Mittick says is the reason we have to have these reforms: so that the majority rights of workers can be abrogated. What say you to Mr Mittick's reason for the labour legislation changes?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would say that we intend to protect the majority rights of workers, not diminish them. The member will see that when the legislation is filed in the House.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Premier. As members will be aware, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs is currently studying Bill 150, the Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act. Because the purpose of the act is to save workers' jobs with workers' money, the committee quite naturally is hearing from lots of workers and lots of unions.

Last Thursday both the Canadian Auto Workers and the Ontario Federation of Labour made persuasive presentations to the committee. To be short, those two organizations are not supportive of this particular labour-sponsored venture capital fund. To quote James O'Neil, the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Auto Workers, "This particular tax represents a regressive and unproductive tax reform." He also says, "The tendency to erode future pensions in favour of venture funds is, for working people, a dangerous mistake."

Mr Premier, when you consider that this particular initiative, this labour-sponsored fund, is a cornerstone of your industrial restructuring initiative, given the negative reviews of this particular act -- I can say to you with all honesty that there hasn't been anybody who has appeared before this committee who has been truly supportive of it; there have been people who have appeared before it and said they have some suggestions, but no one has really said, "This is something we need" -- could you tell me why this particular bill is still there and why you haven't had it withdrawn?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In general, I'd say because we don't simply follow the marching orders of any particular group in society. That would be the answer I would give. You can't have it both ways.

I listened carefully to the member's question and I want to be sure that we understand each other, because Lord knows there are enough occasions on which we talk past each other.

There are two separate issues. Maybe I misunderstood the member's question, but there is the issue of Bill 150, which has to do with worker buyouts; that's one particular issue. I think the other question refers to the issue of the so-called investment fund, which is a separate question and a separate issue. I would say to the honourable member that the question of giving workers an opportunity to buy into companies is something which I think has wide public support. I think it has wide support among people. It certainly has wide support in those communities which have been very seriously affected by industrial change. I would say to the honourable member that he should go into Sault Ste Marie and Kapuskasing and talk with the people living in those communities and those towns and those factories before he dismisses too quickly the notion of workers having an opportunity to take an equity interest in the companies in which they are working.

Mr Kwinter: The Premier misses the point. I have been quite prepared to support this legislation. I'm not criticizing it. The problem I have is that the people who are supposed to be supporting it are not supporting it. If the words of Bob White and the CAW are not enough, perhaps the Premier can turn his mind to the 800,000 affiliated members of the Ontario Federation of Labour. The OFL holds some serious concerns, and I hope the Premier will bear them in mind.

Chris Schenk, the federation's research director, appeared before us last Thursday and said, "There has been no research...to indicate that a lack of venture capital is a major problem in the economy of Ontario," and he said the government might want to rethink the Ontario investment fund as well. This is to answer your point about the workers, and here's what the OFL has to say. Mr Schenk says that the federation remains "unconvinced that there is any advantage for our members to use their hard-earned moneys for purposes of bailing out small companies." This isn't my comment; this is the comment of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Mr Premier, if the two largest labour organizations in Ontario, who are supposed to be supportive -- and I can tell you that Sam Gindin said to me that not only is he not supportive; he will recommend to his members that they take no part in this -- my question is this: If the people who are supposed to be sponsoring it and the people who are supposed to be supporting it are getting recommendations from the two largest labour groups in Ontario, there is no hope that this thing is going to fly. I ask him again: Would he please reconsider withdrawing this bill and going back to the drawing board?

Hon Mr Rae: In a word, no, but I will tell the member why. First of all, I honestly believe that in the comments he's quoting with respect to venture capital and with respect to the investment fund issue, that's a separate issue from the worker buyout question.

Let me repeat my comment to the member. We're not dealing here with a theoretical issue. We're dealing here with an enormously practical issue which faces many workers in many communities. I say with due respect to research directors and others that we have shown very clearly a number of situations where it benefits the workers in the community for people to take an equity interest, to take lower wages as a result and to bargain very creatively with respect to work design and with respect to redesigning the workplace. That's what's happened at Algoma; that's what's happening in Spruce Falls, where, for the first quarter this year, the company has shown a profit. I will say to the member that I am very proud of what we're doing in this area and the government is convinced we're on the right track with respect to giving workers a chance to save the jobs they have.

1510

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There's no question, Madam Minister, that the Gaming Services Act that you presented to this Legislature last week could be used as a means of establishing charity-run casinos within Ontario. You shake your head, but I think if you listen to your advisers, there's no question that it can.

I would like you to state for the record, Madam Minister, which option you intend to use for the operation of casinos in the province of Ontario: the Howard Hampton, Manitoba-style government-run casino, or is the Gaming Services Act in effect the back door to the introduction of casinos? Who is going to run the gambling casinos in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, the introduction of the Gaming Services Act is not related to the issue of casino gambling in any form whatsoever. In fact, the member for York Centre would know that because when he was in this ministry he was working on the Gaming Services Act. I think I've come along and improved it to a large extent since the member for York Centre was working on it. I've been anxious to introduce this bill for some time because the charitable institutions in our province have grown significantly over the past few years. There are about 50,000 charitable organizations that use bingos and that sort of thing to raise funds.

In the meantime, our large commercial sector that runs those bingos and provides the equipment and all of those things has grown. They are not regulated. It's important that we move as quickly as we can to make sure that commercial sector is regulated. We have to make sure that the proceeds to those charities and churches which depend on the money they're raising to support their causes are not skimmed off the top. That is what's been happening out there. I'm very happy and proud that I've been able to introduce this at this time so that we can go ahead and protect those charities.

Mr Tilson: The question was, who is going to run gambling casinos in the province of Ontario? I didn't ask for a summary of the bill. I heard that last week. Within the Gaming Services Act the required qualifications of a gaming assistant or supplier in clause 11(a) are that a registrar may refuse an applicant on the grounds that it "will not act with integrity, honesty or in the public interest." Minister, who will be making these decisions? Who has integrity and honesty? Who has the qualifications within your cabinet to decide "integrity, honesty or in the public interest"? Is it the Premier? Is it the Minister of Northern Development and Mines? Is it you? Who's going to decide those matters as to integrity, honesty or matters in the public interest?

Hon Ms Churley: Obviously the member didn't hear, as he said, the information I gave on the Gaming Services Act. Otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said as a prelude to his first question. It was very important to set the record straight on that. I hope that in fact he did hear what I had to say today, because it's important to charities out there.

The issues are not connected in any way. Let's be very clear on that. In regard to casino gambling, as you already know, it was announced that we would proceed with casino gambling. However, we've made it very clear that we're going to take a very cautious and careful approach to this initiative. That is what we're doing. That's the message we're putting out there. We want to make sure we consult in particular with the special interest groups which have concerns about this. We are in the process of carefully setting up a project team and a process so that people who want to be heard from can be and so that we can sit down and discuss -- certainly I'll be discussing it with you, I'm sure, since you're my critic over there -- to make sure we go about this carefully and with a great deal of caution.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be well aware from his meeting with injured workers' groups that injured workers in this province are very concerned about what is happening to them during these tough economic times. What is this government doing to help injured workers, especially in high-risk industries such as construction?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm well aware of the very legitimate concerns of injured workers. I'm pleased to be able to tell the member that injured workers in the construction industry now have re-employment rights with their employers similar to those in other industries --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Have you completed your response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Well, I thought I'd wait till we got the shouting across the way out of the way first, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister will wait for them.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Our government has recently approved a regulation which requires construction employers to re-employ injured workers to the pre-injury or similar job, to offer suitable employment when the worker is capable of doing so and to modify work in the workplace according to Ontario's Human Rights Code. These rights are similar to those which most Ontario workers have had since the Workers' Compensation Act was last amended in 1990. This was just done. This regulation was drafted by the Workers' Compensation Board in cooperation with a joint labour-management committee from the construction industry. The two sides were able to reach consensus on most issues, showing that once again the partnership between workers and employers in this province can work to the benefit of all.

Mr Morrow: Mr Minister, I recognize that we have to strike some sort of balance between what is socially just and what we can afford. What effect will this regulation have on the cost of workers' compensation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm pleased to tell the member that in this instance, this is an instance where social justice and economic renewal work hand in hand. The regulation imposes no new costs on the workers' compensation system. In fact, the re-employment of injured workers will save money to the board. Returning to the job is not only the psychological and financial benefit of the injured worker, but it also means net saving in benefit costs.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): In the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I'll direct my question to the Premier. Premier, I want to quote to you from a news release in your 1990 election campaign. It reads as follows: "New Democrats say Ontario needs a zero toxin water-quality law and a safe drinking water act that sets standards and gives people the power to enforce those standards. Nothing less than our health and our children's health is at stake."

Mr Premier, we on this side of the House have been waiting with some anticipation for the introduction of a safe drinking water act, which you also promised; your government promised it in your first throne speech. To date we haven't seen anything, any movement at all from the Ministry of the Environment. We want to know, Premier, is your government still committed to a safe drinking water act?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister is just coming into the House, so I'll let her answer the question. Did you hear?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Yes, I did.

I'm sorry not to have been here. I take it that the intent of the question is, when will we introduce the safe drinking water act? If that was in fact the question that the member for Brampton North has posed, I'm sorry to be able to tell him that I can't give him a specific date at this time, but I am able to assure him that the issue of the protection of the waters of the province of Ontario is certainly a concern that I had in opposition, still maintain and have been taking some definite action within the ministry to try to arrive at some kind of a satisfactory program that can assure the people of this province that the drinking water is protected.

1520

Mr McClelland: The minister waxes eloquently about her plans and the commitments of her government, but it's simply not reflected in the actions. I refer even back to last Thursday. There was a question put by myself and the member for Markham and the responses said: "We're going to look at what we can do. We're thinking about a kind of strategy. Our ministry is working on a strategy. It's something that we've considered," and so it goes.

All we hear about is what they're thinking about doing. Here's something that was promised, that was talked about in your 1990 news release. You stated that it was something you were committed to moving on quickly. I recall more than once on opposition days you would stand in your place and say, "Let me have the job for a year and I'll take care of it." You've had the job for more than a year and you have done absolutely nothing as Minister of the Environment.

I want to give you another example. The Jobs Ontario capital fund created in 1992 is supposed to fund environmental projects to ensure clean beaches and safe drinking water, yet according to the minister's estimates, the government is cutting transfer payments to something around half of what it was. At the same time as -- and my question is this -- the government talks about the initiatives which it may accomplish, and financially strips important environmental programs right to the bone.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr McClelland: You talked about Mr Bradley bringing in the round table. You know that you're downsizing the round table even as you pay tribute to him. Minister, when are you going to reconcile the promises of your government that you've made, specifically with respect to the safe, clean water act that you've talked about, the promises with some commitment and with some action? When are we going to see that happen?

Hon Mrs Grier: I reject categorically the allegations of the member for Brampton North. I want the member for Brampton North to know that this government, my ministry and all ministries have taken stronger and more specific action to deal with environmental issues than any government in this province before us, including the one of which he was a member.

Let me tell him that we are the only jurisdiction to have put in place a ban on the incineration of municipal solid waste, a recognition of the fact that you don't deal with waste by merely transferring it to one of the other elements and is symptomatic of the multimedia approach to pollution prevention that this government has enunciated. We are the only government to have put in place a comprehensive and progressive 3Rs program that is making a concrete difference, not only to the way municipalities and communities reduce waste but to the ways in which business looks at waste.

As we integrate environmental policies into economic policies, we see opportunities in the restructuring of the economy of this province to really get to sustainable development. We are the only government to have put in place a policy of sustainable forestry.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: We are the only government to have put in place the kind of energy-efficient program that his government never even contemplated. So don't let the member speak to me about lack of environmental initiatives.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. It concerns --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St George-St David, while the last thing I would do would be to encourage interjections, the member should know that he should at least be sitting in his proper seat. If the House has come to order, then the member for Simcoe West can pose his question.

Mr Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. It concerns the litany of promises surrounding the funding of expanded trauma services at Sudbury General Hospital. Minister, you'll be aware that over the past five years there have been no less than seven announcements concerning this project.

It began back in October 1987 when the government of the day announced $9 million to expand the trauma services at the hospital. In 1989 the Liberal government told the community that Sudbury's trauma project was being reviewed. In 1990 the Health ministry once again endorsed the Sudbury project. Eight months later, your government decided to conduct an internal review of the project and in September 1991 you confirmed, Minister, that the original provincial share in the trauma project had risen to $11 million. You also announced earlier this year that the Sudbury General Hospital project would be given a high priority with your ministry.

Minister, the chronology of promises concerning the question of funding of this project is mind-boggling. I'd ask you, given that just a few weeks ago in this House you said that by June 1, that is today, you would make the announcement and the decision on whether the government would fund these badly needed services, I would ask you what that decision is given that your timetable has now run out.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Can I start off by saying that I agree with the member around the litany of announcements that have been made with respect to a lot of capital projects in this province and how frustrating it is for those local communities. At the same time, as I tried to explain both to the local communities and to members of the House when we made the announcement of the capital projects review, at a time in which we were limiting the transfer of dollars for increased operating costs to hospitals, we felt it was very important that projects that have received prior approval for capital redevelopment and new capital development should be consistent with this planning framework and guidelines and should be consistent with zero increase in operating costs or limited increase in operating costs.

It was truly, I think, very unfortunate from the point of view of communities which have been waiting to get on with things, but we've been trying to do it in a very expeditious way and I think communities that we've been dealing with have felt that we have been responsible and expeditious.

I just want to correct the member on one thing. I did say on several occasions with respect to the next group of capital reviews, of which Sudbury General is one, that I would make every effort to try and have the decision by June 1. I am in the process, myself, within my office of reviewing recommendations right at this very moment. I indicated that it would be as soon as possible and that I might not make the June 1 deadline. I haven't made the June 1 deadline, but I expect to get responses to that community very soon. I've been in touch with people from the community. I've heard from the members representing. I understand the importance and will hope to have them a response within the next very short while.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, I appreciate your response, but while you're fudging around on a date to make this announcement, I hope you realize that you've left the people in northern Ontario and in northeastern Ontario in a very precarious and dangerous situation, because they do have a shortage of emergency trauma services in Sudbury. Dr Gary Bota has been quoted as saying: "We have no room to handle any kind of disaster. We can handle one patient very well, but once we get up to two patients or more we begin to get overwhelmed."

Minister, the problem in northwestern Ontario is grave. I ask you, you seem to have found the money and you are able to take the decision to hire a political hack like Jack Layton in your office, but you can't tell us today, even though you've promised in the past and the previous government promised funding for this project, whether or not your government will support this project. So I give you one more chance. Given your commitment, what is your decision? The people of Sudbury deserve an answer.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I say to the member that I agree the people of Sudbury deserve an answer and I agree that the answer that they get should be consistent with the kind of announcements that this government has made around a new planning framework and a move towards the different delivery of services within the province. Let me say that there is no question of this government's support for enhancement of services of the regional trauma centre in northeastern Ontario. I'll correct the member, it's northeastern and not northwestern Ontario. I want to make sure that he realizes, and that other members realize, there's no question of our support for that. With the nature of the scope of the project and in light of the other discussions the boards themselves in the hospital area have been undertaking about rationalizing services and others, it's important for us to ensure there's a consistency in approach.

I intend to get an answer to people as soon as possible. One thing that I've tried to do in this House is not give non-answers in order to be able to fudge deadlines and leave myself all sorts of room. I said that I was going to shoot for the end of May and I said I may not make that date. I haven't made that date. I hope the answer will be out very soon. I'm in the process and in a high priority way of reviewing the recommendations that have been brought to me. I think it's fair for me to indicate deadlines to people and to try and make those deadlines. I think that's a more genuine way of dealing with --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I don't take the member's criticism on that point.

1530

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Madam Minister, as you are aware we do have a serious problem in Guelph, in that with the former site of the International Malleable Iron Co, known as IMICO, the US owners of this company pulled up stakes and left a polluted piece of property. Then a Guelph resident bought the property for $1. Obviously it was something the company didn't want to handle any more.

I know the federal government, the provincial government and our municipal government have been working together to try to solve the issue, but the area residents have great concerns about the property being cleaned up. I'm just wondering, Madam Minister, if you can provide right now to my residents and myself an update of the IMICO site.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): This is certainly not the first time this member has raised this issue with me, and I'm glad to provide a response to him and one on the record for the other members of the House.

The site to which he refers is one that has given my ministry a great deal of difficulty in trying to deal with successive owners to make sure it is cleaned up. I'm glad to be able to tell him we've contributed $90,000 to removing potentially hazardous raw materials as well as PCBs from the site.

The current owner has submitted an application for a certificate of approval for a waste disposal site and a waste management system. Our understanding is that the proponent wishes to establish a waste handling facility to compost organic material. The proponent has been advised that the applications he submitted did not contain sufficient detail to allow us to process them and that once we've received that detail from him, then certainly my ministry will look at those applications in detail.

Mr Fletcher: Madam Minister, our residents are very tired and very upset with the rhetoric that's been coming from previous governments. We know this isn't something new this government has done; this has been around for a number of years and previous governments have failed to operate on this.

Madam Minister, can the proponent who has bought this site go ahead with his waste management program without first cleaning up the site?

Hon Mrs Grier: The proponent will certainly have to assure our ministry that the site is adequate and can in fact be used for the purposes he has suggested. He was asked by my ministry to submit a decomissioning plan to the ministry for review by May 15, 1992. When the plan was submitted it was considered inadequate as it didn't give us sufficient information to enable the ministry to determine whether in fact the site could be decommissioned to an appropriate standard. We have again asked the proponent to supply us with that kind of detail, and again I can assure the member that when we receive the information that is adequate to enable us to do an evaluation, we will do that as quickly as we can.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Given the fact that your ministry's budget has been reduced; given the fact that your ministry has both directly and indirectly cut seasonal employment opportunities; given the fact that Ontarians cannot expect an increase in the level of service at our provincial parks; given the fact that the minister is increasing the rates at provincial parks by as much as 425%; given the fact that senior citizens will now be paying park fees throughout the week; given the fact that these increases impact most heavily on seniors and low-income Ontarians, Minister, is this just another example of your government's policy of pay more, get less?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is correct that the policy has been changed this year so that seniors will be paying throughout the week. But he will also know -- I think he probably just inadvertently didn't mention the fact -- that we have cut the fees to a lower fee for disabled people, unlike previous governments, while at the same time changing the fees for seniors.

Mr Brown: I have another question about paying more and getting less. For many years Ontarians have enjoyed the use of our crown land for recreational pursuits. Many Ontarians have land use permits. Typically on the land is located a modest hunt camp or angling camp for the season. They're occupied, as members would know, usually for two or three weekends a year.

Given that your government has seen fit to cap residential rent increases in this province at 9%, only 7% above inflation, and given the fact that there's a falling of commercial rents within the province today, how can you justify increases as much as 1,300% on these land use permits? Is this just another example of pay more, get less?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am happy to assure the member that that decision, which comes from earlier decisions and assessments by previous governments, will be reviewed and is currently being reviewed. I hope to make an announcement in the near future which will change those numbers substantially.

UNIVERSITY CROWN FOUNDATIONS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Mr Minister, I'm sure you have the same letters I do from Queen's University and the University of Western Ontario indicating that because British Columbia and Alberta have already provided for the establishment of crown foundations, our Ontario universities are at a distinct disadvantage. The benefactors have actually told them -- and I've been part of it in one instance -- that until Ontario has this legislation, these benefactors will not be making the anticipated and much-needed substantial donations to our Ontario universities.

We're struggling and looking for cooperation from the private sector. Some of us are going about trying to get this money -- myself personally right now for your seatmate here -- because we have work to do in this province and we don't have this crown corporation. I'm going to ask you today: Will you be making this announcement? I know all three parties are in favour of it.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I am sure the member knows that about a year ago I started an initiative towards that objective of creating university crown foundations. For those not familiar with such institutions, they are a device whereby a person who makes a very large contribution from income can get more than the standard 20% charitable deduction credits against their income, up to 100%, by voluntarily submitting to 100% tax on what you give. I have been looking at a number of the accountability mechanisms around that. The previous Treasurer was proposing, for example, a crown foundation for the whole province. The universities themselves do not want that; they want individual crown foundations to attract their own supporters and for their own project development.

The member will also recall that the member for Nepean introduced a resolution last November on that subject and it was supported by all three parties in the House. I have taken that under advisement and we're working very quickly on it now and I hope the member will be able to see something reasonably soon.

PETITIONS

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition signed by some 15 persons opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed that petition, Mr Speaker.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition of some 148 names from the communities of Mount Forest, Windsor, Port Hope, Milton and Etobicoke, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario's labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here today regarding the land speculation tax:

"As realtors in the province of Ontario, we are opposed to the implementation of a new land speculation tax at a time when the real estate and housing market is beginning to revive. It is both unnecessary and counterproductive."

I will affix my signature to this.

1540

RENT REGULATION

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

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

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

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

"This law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and property owners across the province.

"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:

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

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

"(3) To encourage that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I present a petition on behalf of 145 constituents, parents of children attending Cardinal Newman school. It states:

"We, the ratepayers, parents, staff and students of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, are concerned about the way in which Catholic education is funded by the Ontario government in Metropolitan Toronto.

"Although separate schools have been given the right to provide education to the end of grade 12 OAC, they were never given equal funding. For example, in 1991 a Catholic elementary school child in Metro was educated with 75% of the money spent on his or her public school counterpart and the Catholic high school student was allotted only 70% of the money spent on his or her public school counterpart. These differences represent a shortfall of $1,678 per student at the elementary level and $2,502 at the high school level.

"We urge you to act now to restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition and it is from the merchants of Erin Mills Town Centre. It's been forwarded to me by Cadillac Fairview and it reads as follows:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition from the good people of West Hill, Etobicoke, Nepean, Blenheim and Sarnia, and it didn't cost the government anything for this petition, not $300 an hour like Jack Layton's going to charge just to find out public opinion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your petition reads as follows.

Mr Stockwell: In fact this is free, and there are many more to come.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses" --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: They're cackling again.

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

That's signed by 250 people, not one of whom did Jack Layton have to consult with for $300. This is the kind of approach the government should use.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member simply present his petition.

Mr Stockwell: I will affix my name.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition from 132 people, stretching from Scarborough, Stouffville, Burk's Falls, Sundridge, Goderich, London and Toronto. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario's labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On behalf of 42 constituents of the school of St Albert, I present a petition:

"That serious inequity exists in funding of the separate school boards throughout Ontario. This results in fewer funds with which to educate our students. In 1991 alone, the Metropolitan Separate School Board spent $1,678 less per elementary school student and $2,502 less per secondary school student than in Metro public school boards.

"We, the undersigned, request that this inequity in funding be corrected immediately by our provincial government."

I affix my signature of support.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that's signed by 611 people from places like Brockville, Maitland, Orleans, Maple, Barrie and Nobleton. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I too have affixed my name to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas medical and biological sciences have proven conclusively that human life begins at conception, therefore abortion is the direct killing of a human being. Over one million unborn Canadians have been killed in our country since 1969;

"Whereas abortion cannot be construed as a medical procedure since the aim of medicine is to cure and to heal, not to take life, abortion has only one purpose, and that is to terminate the life of an unborn child. This has nothing to do with medical care.

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

"We strongly object to the plan by the Ontario Health Minister to increase abortion facilities, provide full funding for the killing of babies, and pay travel expenses for women in remote areas to secure abortions.

"We, the taxpayers, resent having our tax money used in such destructive policies. This money could be used instead for helping women with crisis pregnancies to have their babies, providing subsequent support for them, both emotional and financial, as well as providing adoption services.

"We strongly urge you to consider the population depletion caused by widespread abortion, which has already become a crucial problem not only in Ontario but across Canada. This problem will only get worse if your abortion policies are implemented.

"Therefore, we plead with you to implement life-enhancing policies that will respect the dignity of all human life, including the unborn.

It has 2,500 names, gathered together by Ruth Cogan of Thornhill.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have one further petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 282 signatories of Woodbridge, Thornhill, Weston, Aurora and Rexdale.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to that.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

This petition has been signed by individuals from Eastern Construction, Culliton Brothers Ltd, J.W. Green Construction Management Ltd, Insulec Ltd, Westroc Industries Ltd, Armco Agencies Inc, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, Square One Shopping Centre, Dominion Sheet Metal and Roofing Works, the A.G. Simpson Co Ltd, London Steel, VicWest Steel, S.G. Smallwood Ltd, Ennisteel Service Centre, Mollenhauer, and Courtice Steel Inc. I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

1550

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to the destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially 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 entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

This is signed by 33 residents of the city of London and the county of Middlesex.

DAY CARE

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has undertaken a consultation which does not address the major policy changes inherent in its plan; and

"Whereas the policy changes are basically descriminatory; and

"Whereas we believe the government commitment to child care should be licensing and monitoring and funding only via transfers to the municipalities to cover the cost of families in need;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to treat all child care operations equally and to cease funding capital and start-up costs of non-profit agencies to provide subsidies which will cover the true cost of care for the children whose parents qualify for assistance."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

This is signed by 245 people from Cornwall, Mississauga, Markham, North York and Elmira.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have 250 signatures from Kincardine, Hanover, Durham, Walkerton and Wiarton. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour Legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's 1990-91 annual report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Not at this time.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): This bill, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, puts into effect the changes announced by the Treasurer in his budget of April 30, 1992. The bill includes stricter controls that will make the used vehicle market both fair and equitable for sellers and buyers of used motor vehicles.

When a vehicle is sold, retail sales tax will be paid on either the purchase price or the average wholesale price, whichever is greater. At the request of the industry, an administrative amendment will eliminate the requirement to enter into a written contract to convert a motor vehicle to the use of alternative fuel within 90 days of the vehicle purchase.

This bill also contains a number of other administrative changes needed to carry out day-to-day operations under the act.

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

Mr Beer moved first reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la représentation électorale.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): There are two reasons I am proposing a change of the name of my riding from York North to York-Mackenzie.

First, while I have tremendous admiration for all those who live in the city of North York, I find that again and again the riding of York North is always referred to as "North York" -- we get a tremendous number of phone calls and letters -- so it was felt we wanted to make a distinction between York North and the city of North York. There is also a federal riding of the same name.

Equally important, I think we should be using more history in the names of our ridings. York-Mackenzie has been selected in tribute to three of our distinguished legislators and political leaders named Mackenzie: William Lyon Mackenzie, who was the member of the colonial Legislature of Upper Canada for York county; William Lyon Mackenzie King, who was the Prime Minister of Canada and member of Parliament for York North riding, and Major A. Alexander Mackenzie, who was the member of the Ontario Legislature for York North from 1945 to 1967. I believe this is a sensible change and one that in particular will underline and give note to our history. York-Mackenzie would be that name.

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Mr Pouliot moved first reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages puts into effect changes announced by the Treasurer in his budget of April 30, 1992. This bill introduces a new product, the vehicle transfer package, that will provide consumers with information on used motor vehicles. It's a first in the province of Ontario.

This measure will also address problems in the used motor vehicle market and should assist both sellers and buyers of used motor vehicles. In order to conduct a private sale, a seller will be required to purchase a vehicle transfer package that must be passed on to the buyer as part of the registration requirements. This package will also contain a vehicle description and history of the vehicle, including lien information, a fair market value of the vehicle based on an average wholesale price and other consumer information.

This bill also contains changes to the Personal Property Security Act that are required to implement this new program.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

Deferred votes on 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): Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

1610

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 1(1) relating to "board," which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 18; nays 76.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 1(1) relating to "standards board," which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 33; nays 61.

The committee divided on whether section 1, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 62; nays 32.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 12(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 33; nays 61.

Section 12 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 13(8), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Ayes 61; nays 33.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

The committee divided on whether section 14.1 should stand as part of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 18; nays 76.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to clause 15(2)(e), which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 61; nays 33.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on whether sections 16 and 18 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 18(1), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 19 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to clauses 20(1)(a) to (c), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are members required to vote on each and every single vote or may they abstain?

The Chair: They must vote.

Mr Eves: I believe the member for Durham Centre did not vote on the last amendment.

The Chair: How do you vote?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It's already been counted, Mr Speaker.

The Chair: Thank you.

1620

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to 20(1)(f), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 20(3), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 20(4), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 20(4.1), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 20(8), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 20(9), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 21(5), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 21(6.1), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 21(10) to 21(12) inclusive, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 21, as amended, agreed.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 22(4), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 22(10), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to section 22.1, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 23 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsection 24(4), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 24(4), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 24 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to section 25, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 25 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to section 26, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 26 agreed to.

Section 27 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 28(3), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs Marland's amendment to clause 29(2)(c.1), which was negatived on same vote reversed.

Section 29 agreed to.

Sections 30 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to sections 34 to 41, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 34 agreed to.

Sections 35 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 39(3), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to clause 40(1)(b), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 40(2), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 41 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 49(1), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 50 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsections 61(2) to (4), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 61, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 62(4), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 62, as amended, agreed to.

Section 63 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to clause 64(1)(a), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 64, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 65 to 94, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsections 95(1) to 95(14), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 95 agreed to.

Sections 96 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.

1630

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 104(7), which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 61; nays 33.

Section 104, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 105 to 113, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 114(2), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 114, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 115(2), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 115, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 116 to 118, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to clause 119(a), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 119 agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to clause 120(3)(a), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 120 agreed to.

Sections 121 to 124, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to section 125.1, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 125 agreed to.

Sections 126 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to sections 129.1 to 129.14, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 129 agreed to.

Sections 130 to 134, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Ms Gigantes's amendment to subsection 135(1), which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 135(1.1), which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 94; nays 0.

Section 135, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 136 to 140, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.

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

Ms Gigantes moved third reading 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 Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): There is a lot of noise in this chamber. I realize that members do have other places to attend; however, please be as quiet as possible. The honourable Minister of Housing.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very proud of this legislation because the days of high rent increases for tenants in Ontario are finally over. Bill 121 also ensures better maintenance and repair of our rental buildings. All of us in this House hope that by being here we can in some way make a real difference for the constituency we represent and for the people of Ontario, and I think this Rent Control Act will make such a difference.

It's legislation which prevents high rent increases and, equally important, it's legislation which will reduce the fear of economic eviction, the fear that just around the corner lies a rent increase that will force tenants out of their homes. In the past, under existing rent review in Bill 51, we've seen tenants being required by law to pay rent increases of 30%, 40% and 50%. In some cases those rent increases have gone as high as 100% in a single year. In many cases we have seen rent review decisions that loaded increases of 20% plus per year, year after year. It's been an intolerable experience for thousands and thousands of tenants in this province. There is no excuse for it, and there's no defence of a system of rent regulation which has allowed it to happen.

That was the rent review system that was in place when our government took office in 1990. It was a system under which any tenant in the province could be faced at any time, once a year, with a rent increase of any amount. Tenants had only one choice: pay or get out. It was all quite legal and quite acceptable under a system of rent review which claimed to protect tenants while allowing landlords high rent increases to pay for such things as their financial losses after they had purchased buildings at inflated costs. In truth, the rent review system we've had has been one which guaranteed the landlords earned profits but provided tenants with very little protection. That's why we stopped it in its tracks the moment our government came to office.

During the past 18 months, we've conducted one of the most extensive public consultations ever held on the issue of rent regulation. Our goal was to give every landlord and tenant and every interest group involved in the province an opportunity to make their views known on rent control.

The result of that extensive consultation and of the give and take of legislative amendment is before the House today. The central feature of the legislation is protection for tenants from high rent increases. That's got to be the obvious focus of any real system of tenant protection, just as the first question on the mind of any tenant in Ontario is: How much can my rent go up?

The answer is that a maximum rent can go up once each year by the rent control guideline plus no more than 3%. There are two aspects to this, and I'd like to speak for a moment to each of them: the rent control guideline and the 3% cap.

The Rent Control Act allows landlords to raise the rent of a tenant once a year by the amount of the rent control guideline. The landlord does not need the permission of the Ministry of Housing to charge the rent guideline increase. The guideline will be calculated annually and it will reflect the inflationary costs of running a rental building. These are increases in the costs of such things as janitorial service, heat, hydro, water and municipal taxes. The guideline also includes a 2% allowance to pay for normal building repairs.

1640

As a result, every landlord in Ontario can charge every tenant in Ontario one rent increase each year to cover the cost of inflation and the cost of regular repairs. That's the guideline increase.

On the 3% cap, during our consultations on rent control landlords asked to be able to get rent increases above the rent control guideline in order to pay for major repairs. In response, we estimated the amount of money that would be required to do all the necessary repairs to their buildings during the next 10 years.

We calculated that landlords would need between $4 billion and $7 billion for major repairs during the coming decade and, as a result, this rent control system allows landlords to obtain more than $8 billion within the 2% allowed in the guideline alone for repairs during the next 10 years.

I want to stress that point because there's been a tremendous amount of misinformation on the issue of repairs. There have been all kinds of statements, including a petition tabled by some members of this Legislature, claiming that the new rent control legislation will not allow landlords to obtain enough money to do repairs to their buildings, which is absolute nonsense.

In fact, most landlords never apply for an increase above the rent control guideline. The vast majority of landlords, about 80% annually, are able to continue to maintain their buildings using only the guideline rent increase each year. This is hardly a system which denies landlords the funds they need to repair their buildings.

Bill 121 provides a system which balances the need for landlords to repair their buildings with the need for tenants to be protected from high rent increases. With this legislation we are ensuring for the first time ever that tenants pay only for legitimate repairs.

The Rent Control Act allows a landlord to claim for repairs which fall into one of four categories, and these are: repairs to ensure the structure and soundness of the building; repairs required to meet health, safety or environmental standards; repairs to provide access for disabled persons and repairs to increase energy or water conservation. In other words, these are necessary, legitimate repairs.

Under the Rent Control Act, tenants are no longer required to pay for the landlord's financing costs or for unwanted luxury repairs or renovations to their building. The bill also stipulates that the repairs cannot be generated by neglect of the landlord.

The landlord must also show that the 2% allowance for repairs, which is contained in the annual rent control guideline, has already been spent on necessary repairs. In other words, the landlord must spend the 2% in the guideline on eligible repair work before claiming any of the possible further 3% rent increase.

Finally, under this legislation tenants have a right to a hearing. A landlord has to prove the need for the repairs and the cost of the repairs at a rent control hearing.

There's one further point I'd like to make on the issue of repairs. It involves reductions in the rent of tenants when repairs have been paid for. Under this legislation, when a repair is paid for five or 10 years down the road, the rent of the tenants in the building is reduced accordingly.

In other words, tenants no longer pay for repairs compounded for ever and ever. With this legislation, for the first time, tenants no longer pay for repairs past the point where the landlord has recovered the cost of the repair. When a legitimate repair has been paid for, the rent of the tenants is reduced.

This legislation addresses another area of real importance to tenants, and that's maintenance. The Rent Control Act contains powers to prohibit any rent increases at all if there is an outstanding provincial or municipal work order against a building. Tenants should not be paying even guideline rent increases if their building is maintained poorly, and if there is poor maintenance this legislation gives the tenants the right to obtain a rent reduction. Landlords have an obligation to maintain their buildings and this legislation will help ensure that they do.

There's one other issue I'd like to draw to the attention of members. I want to make it clear to those watching at home that while this law is before the House today for third reading, it will not take effect until later this summer. We need to allow for a smooth transition from the current rent review system to the new rent control system. The transition period will give staff the time for training of field office personnel, reorganizing the system and regulating the notices and forms required by the legislation.

Finally, there are a great many people I'd like to thank for their contributions to this legislation, first and foremost the members of our caucus, specifically the parliamentary assistant for Housing, Margaret Harrington, and the member for Wentworth North, Don Abel, who travelled across the province to conduct the public meetings on the legislation. A word of special thanks also goes to Dave Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs and our intrepid House leader, who initiated rent control reform when he was Minister of Housing.

I'd also like to thank the many members of the public, individuals and interest groups throughout Ontario who took the time to participate in this process.

Thanks also should be given to the critics for the opposition parties, the member for Eglinton, the member for Mississauga South and the member for Dufferin-Peel, each of whom provided suggestions which have improved the legislation.

I'd like to thank the staff of my office, led by Tim Welch, for their help and support, and also the staff of the Ministry of Housing for their hard work and the excellence of their work. I know their expert advice and knowledge have been appreciated by members on all sides of the House, and none more than the great contribution of skill and dedication by Colleen Parrish, policy director for the Ministry of Housing.

On behalf of all the elected representatives here, please accept our warm thanks.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the minister's opening remarks? Seeing none, further debate?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill 121, the Rent Control Act. As we all know, this legislation, which received first reading on June 6, 1991, is this government's long-term legislation designed to replace the existing Residential Rent Regulation Act, which was implemented by the previous Liberal government.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Sorry to interrupt. On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding that by agreement of the House leaders, it's been agreed that there will be 45 minutes allocated to each of the opposition parties. I understand that was agreed to with Mr Cooke. If that's the case and there are no other speakers on the government side, then that should go on the clock.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Therefore we will be splitting the time equally between now and 6 of the clock.

Mr Mahoney: There was a requirement by the Conservative caucus to have a minimum of 45 minutes. This means it will go past 6 of the clock this evening and the final vote will take place tomorrow, and the debate will continue tomorrow. It's 45 minutes for each of the opposition parties to speak to the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement where the two opposition parties would share, with 45 minutes of specified time each, with no questions and/or comments? Do we have agreement?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed.

1650

Mrs O'Neill: If I may continue, Mr Speaker, as I rose in this House over a year ago to address my concerns about Bill 4, I said that for various reasons it was bad legislation. Bill 121, I say with regret, does not go very far to alleviate the concerns I had at that time.

Since this extremely complex piece of legislation was introduced in this House almost exactly a year ago, the legislation has gone through the committee process and both public hearings and clause-by-clause hearings have been held right across this province. Over and over again the committee heard from small landlords whose life savings were being put at risk by this bill. Over and over again their concerns have been ignored. We see very little in the final version of the legislation to reflect their legitimate concerns.

My Liberal colleagues have spoken often about many sections of this bill that are of particular concern to them. I therefore limit my comments to one particular aspect of this legislation which is of significant concern to me and to a number of my constituents in Ottawa-Rideau.

I would like to discuss part II of the bill. This part of the bill allows applications for rent increases above the maximum 3% guideline, subject to reviews by administrative staff of the Ministry of Housing, with provisions for appeal to Divisional Court on matters of law only. Sections 62 to 68 define the administrative review process. This part of the new legislation establishes a director of rent control and provides for the resolution of disputes by administrative review or by a single hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

I quote from a letter I received from Mr Roger Greenberg, president of Minto Developments: "Bill 121 proposes that a Ministry of Housing administrator will have total discretion to make a rent control determination. There will be no independent appeal process if either party is dissatisfied with the decision or even if there is a clerical error. There will only be a costly court appeal and then only on a point of law."

Tenants and small and large landlords are losing a fundamental avenue of appeal in Bill 121. That concerns me. Requests to review decisions will now stop at the bureaucratic door. This process will do nothing to improve tenant-landlord relations in this province, nor can it be called a more streamlined rent review process.

I continue to have concerns about the maintenance provisions of Bill 121, as well. The capital expenditure provisions have been called completely unrealistic. We all know 65% of Ontario's rental housing stock is over 20 years old. All our rental units are getting older and require ongoing repair and maintenance. In a letter to me, a constituent cites the example of a fairly typical large-scale and certainly not uncommon maintenance project: the repair of a parking garage due to salt damage to the structural concrete.

Under Bill 121, only a very small portion of the cost of this necessary maintenance can be recovered by the landlord. Only 3% of the capital expenditure will be allowed for a period of two consecutive years. In my constituent's example, the cost for this work could be between $300,000 and $400,000. Only $18,000 to $24,000 would be recoverable over the first two years. The remainder would have to be absorbed by the landlord from already restricted profit margins. I'm talking about a major necessary repair.

Tenants are not happy with the maintenance provisions of this bill either. Tenants have a very strong interest in the maintenance of their homes, just as landlords do. If landlords cannot afford to maintain the integrity of Ontario's rental housing stock, the tenants will ultimately bear the burden. That's where the fears lie. Tenants' groups are concerned that the allowable maintenance increases can be phased in over two or three years, depending on the size of the building, and that landlords will be able to hide larger-than-inflation increases over several years. Tenants are also concerned about the double standard between large and small buildings and the double standard between new and existing buildings.

I must repeat what I said earlier: This bill does not represent a process of streamlining. Bill 121 is regressive rather than progressive. It does not give either tenants or landlords a sense of security in the Ontario rental market in the 1990s. Tenants cannot feel secure that the long-term integrity of rental housing stock, their homes in Ontario, will be maintained under this piece of legislation. Landlords, on the other hand, cannot feel secure they can achieve a fair return on the investments they make to protect their businesses. I share the disappointment of all partners in the rental housing industry in the passage of this piece of legislation, Bill 121.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): When the Bob Rae government passes Bill 121 the future of Ontario's tenants, property owners, construction workers and rental housing stock will be dealt a staggering blow.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Bob Rae's socialist government.

Mrs Marland: The Minister of Housing just corrected me, that it is in fact the Bob Rae socialist government that is passing this bill. She is absolutely correct. As a result of the NDP socialist government's rent control legislation, Ontario will suffer a deterioration of existing rental housing, a poisoning of the relations between tenants and property owners, a virtual halt to the construction of new rental housing and enormous job losses because of lost business in the construction and renovation of rental housing.

An employment impact study by Morrison Hershfield Ltd, Consulting Engineers, and Clayton Research Associates estimates that as a result of Bills 4 and 121, 25,000 jobs will be lost in this province. The reason for these losses is that the 3% allowance for rent increases above the guideline, combined with other restrictions in Bill 121, simply cannot fund the apartment renovation work that is required. For every $100 million of renovation work that does not proceed, about 31,000 person-years of employment are lost.

Last October laid-off construction workers gathered at Queen's Park and symbolically presented the Minister of Housing with a box of pink slips representing the thousands of jobs lost when Ontario's rental housing employment base collapsed in response to Bill 4. It was a sorry sight of talent going to waste due to this socialist government's blindness to the realities of Ontario's housing market.

The job losses continue with the impending passage of Bill 121. Just last week the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario provided examples of some of its member companies that have lost jobs as a direct result of Bills 4 and 121. All of the following figures are in comparison to September 1990 when Bill 4 came into effect.

These are examples we have received from the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario: Macdero, down 25% in jobs, down 25 men; Duron Ontario, 34 men employed in September 1990, presently employing two men, down $3 million to $4 million annually in jobs; Donvan, down 60% in work and lost 50% of workforce; Maxim, down 10 to 15 men, lost $2 million of work; Clane went from 55 men to seven, lost $1.8 million to $4.5 million worth of work; Harrell, down 75% in jobs and lost six men.

1700

Those are job losses that affect many hundreds, in fact thousands, of families across this province. The concrete restoration industry estimates its apartment contracts were slashed by as much as 63% due to rent control legislation, compared with only 4% as a result of recessionary factors. Clearly the NDP government's legislation is crippling the construction sector in Ontario. Not only the people who lose their jobs, but also the tenants whose buildings will not be repaired and restored will suffer as a result of Bill 121. The NDP socialists are betraying the very people they claim to be protecting.

I would like to examine briefly the measures in Bill 121 which will prevent the upkeep of rental accommodation. I have already mentioned that a 3% increase above the guideline for major capital repairs will not be sufficient for property owners to afford those costly repairs. To make matters worse, property owners will have to prove the repairs they undertake are not the result of neglect before they can obtain the increase. As well, tenants will be able to apply for a rent decrease on the grounds of inadequate maintenance. However, Bill 121 never defines "neglect" or "inadequate maintenance." The rent officers, whose training and expertise have not even been considered by the Minister of Housing, will make the final determinations of what is or is not neglect. It will be impossible to appeal their decisions. Under such circumstances, who could possibly want to own a rental building?

In New York City, where the sorry state of much of the rental housing is a testament to the disastrous consequences of rent control, there have been cases where unscrupulous tenants have purposefully damaged their buildings or apartments in order to obtain a rent reduction. The owners are then forced to make repairs which are construed to be neglect. We only have to look at the resulting square miles of slums and abandoned buildings in New York City to know that this is not what we want for Toronto or any other city in Ontario.

In addition to requiring the property owner to prove that there has not been neglect in order to qualify for the 3% above-the-guideline increase, the minister introduced an amendment in committee which stipulated that the 2% within the guideline for capital expenditures will not be guaranteed each year. When the property owner applies for an above-the-guideline increase, he not only has to justify the use of the requested increase, but also has to account for the use of the 2% within the guideline.

Every tenant and property owner can attest to the fact that there are always minor repairs which need to be undertaken each year, such as new carpets, painting or plumbing and heating maintenance. The 2% in the guideline was supposed to accommodate these routine expenditures. If this 2% has to be rolled into the amount required to qualify for an above-the-guideline increase, minor repairs will be passed over or neglected in order to undertake major capital repairs. The property owner is then put in the lose-lose position of either pursuing the building's upkeep through small repairs each year and ignoring the larger projects, only to be penalized for neglect, or sacrificing normal upkeep in order to qualify for the maximum above-the-guideline increase, still accruing enormous debt, being charged with neglect and likely losing the building.

As if this were not enough, the NDP socialist government further compounded the problem by applying costs no longer borne to capital expenditures, so that the 2% in the guideline was further threatened. If this mistake had not been corrected, the 2% could have been lifted out of the calculation of the maximum rent once the costs were deemed to have been recovered. Fortunately, the government agreed to a PC amendment to section 135, which corrected this situation so that property owners would not lose the 2% to which they were rightfully entitled. We, as members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, are proud of the fact that we were able to point out to the government this blatant error in its poorly drafted legislation.

It is obvious, from the weaknesses I have outlined, that property owners will not be able to recuperate the costs of necessary capital repairs to their buildings. As a result, the buildings will fall into disrepair. Many property owners will lose their investments and tenants will be left without sufficient housing and with substandard housing. One can only hope that this NDP socialist government's legislation will not do irreparable damage before the government can be defeated in the next provincial election and Bill 121 repealed.

Another major problem with Bill 121 is that financial institutions have indicated that they will be reluctant to provide financing to property owners who cannot guarantee a steady rental income for a building because of the rent decrease provisions of the bill. This will make it very difficult for many property owners to refinance their buildings and will stop many prospective property owners from purchasing rental housing.

This is not the only financing problem that is a direct consequence of Bill 121. Another is the fact that increased financing costs, a market condition over which property owners have no control, will not be considered when a property owner applies for an above-the-guideline increase. Although a Progressive Conservative amendment correcting this situation was passed by the general government committee, the government did an about-face and retracted the amendment during the committee of the whole House.

I mentioned earlier the difficulty with the rent officer, who will make the final decisions on whether to grant rent increases or decreases. In committee I identified major problems with the undefined expertise of the rent officers and the lack of an appeal process for their decisions.

The almighty wizards, these rent officers, whose training the minister has not even yet considered, will arbitrarily make decisions on whether capital expenditures qualify for a rent increase. When I asked the ministry in committee if this seemed appropriate, Colleen Parrish, the director of the housing policy branch, said that, like judges, the rent officers will have evidence placed before them and will have to pass judgement based on that evidence. But judges are among our society's most highly educated and experienced professionals. What sort of expertise will rent officers have to make decisions that decide whether property owners may receive some remuneration for repairs that cost thousands, even millions, of dollars? Obviously these wizards who render the final judgements must also have clear criteria for their decisions. However, Bill 121, with its lack of adequate definitions, still lacks those criteria.

Turning to another problematic area --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Apparently the government is so disinterested in what opposition thinks of it that we don't have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1709

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Mississauga South may resume her participation in the debate.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That time has been taken away from our 45 minutes. That is not what is agreed.

The Acting Speaker: I'm advised by the table that the time has not been taken from the allocated time.

Mrs Marland: Turning to another problematic area of Bill 121, this legislation has no appeal process except an expensive, time-consuming court case, and then only on points of law. An appeal process has been inherent in the system of rent control since its institution. Due to Bill 121's lack of definitions and directives for those who enforce it, an appeal process is required, more so for this legislation than any which preceded it. It is unconscionable that the process for determining legal rents can be arbitrarily decided by one person, the rent officer.

At the beginning of these remarks I mentioned that poisoned relations between property owners and tenants will be the inevitable outcome of Bill 121. Property owners unable to afford the upkeep of their buildings will be resented by tenants living in units that require repair work. As well, the bill disturbs the balance of power that presently exists between property owner and tenant, tilting the scales on the side of the tenant. Balance must be restored if we are to have healthy rental housing conditions in Ontario.

If the NDP socialist government really had vision and intestinal fortitude, it would have considered instituting rent decontrol, since the present conditions of higher vacancy rates and lower land prices than we have had in many years would result in reasonable rents and an increase in rental housing stocks. Those families that could not afford market rents would be helped through a system of direct shelter subsidies, and the taxpayers would be paying less to help more people.

There will always be people who need help with their rents. There will always be people in our society who need protection against the cost of housing at any price. We know who those people are. They are people with disabilities whose earning power is reduced because of their disabilities, people on fixed incomes and so forth, the examples we already have addressed in our debate in this House. Those people will always need protection, and our Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of protecting those people from rents which they cannot afford.

A shelter subsidy program could help all the 250,000 Ontario families that spend more than 25% of their income on rent, for a cost of $410 million a year. Compare that to the $428 million we spent last year to subsidize just 68,000 units of non-profit housing, not to mention the $41-million cost of administering the rent control system.

The majority of families that are in core need have incomes of less than $20,000 a year. Rent control does not help them, since they can't afford the rents anyway. In fact, an Ontario government study shows that over half of rent review benefits go to the top 60% of households by income. In effect, by artificially capping rents, rent control subsidies subsidize everyone, even those who are well off. Instead, we should be providing direct assistance only to the people who are clearly in need.

Another beneficial effect of a shelter subsidy program is that regardless of income needy tenants would have a choice as to where they lived and would not be segregated and stigmatized in social housing projects. This socialist government, with its ideological blinkers, has tunnel vision when it comes to housing.

There is a way to ensure that all people in Ontario have decent shelter that is affordable, but it is not through rent control or government-funded non-profit housing. It is through a healthy free market, combined with direct subsidies to those in need.

The final comment I wish to make in closing is to emphasize once more, as I have done in the general government committee debate and in committee of the whole House debating this regressive Bill 121, that the socialist ideology of this government is not in the best interests of tenants or property owners. It's very clear where this socialist government is headed. Once more I want to place on the record the comments of the now Premier, Bob Rae, when in opposition he was quoted as saying the following: "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 quote comes directly from the then opposition leader Bob Rae and was quoted in a pre-election newsletter of the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations, so there's no doubt in anybody's mind where this socialist government is headed. As it heads down this track to thinking that it, as a government, must be in the housing business and spend millions and millions of dollars in ownership of housing in order to protect people from rent increases that they cannot afford, it is misleading the public of this province.

The concern we have is that we know that with the same dollars that are currently being spent on their government housing programs we could look after four times as many people with the same investment by the taxpayers of this province. This bill, Bill 121, is just simply another step in the wrong direction.

The people who will be most hurt by this legislation in the long run are the people who are dependent on rental accommodation in Ontario today: those people who will never be able to afford to buy their own home, those people who, for a number of reasons, never wanted to buy their own homes because they wanted the convenience of living in an apartment or in a rental town house. The point is that this government believes it has to make the choices for the people of this province. It wants to make sure that people live in buildings that are identified as social housing buildings.

We do not support the concept of returning to the old Ontario Housing developments where everybody knew where you lived and everybody knew that your rent was subsidized. What we believe is directly subsidizing the tenant so he can take the money and choose where he lives and he doesn't live in a building that is identified as a government housing project.

That's what we want for the future of tenants in this province. What we want for the future of property owners in this province is a fair investment return for the fact that they have bought properties which in turn provide housing for people who choose to rent in their properties.

I say, just in closing, that this has been a very long, tedious, dismal battle against Bill 121 and there is no way the interests of the public of this province can be served by this legislation. As I said in my comments a few minutes ago, we simply look forward to the day when the Progressive Conservative Party is the government and it can repeal this bill which is about to be passed.

1720

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): At the outset, let me say that, in terms of much of the general discussion, both in committee and in committee of the whole, that has taken place with respect to Bill 121, it has, I think, been comprehensive and in some cases exhaustive, and some might say in some cases exhausting.

I want at the outset to associate myself with many of the comments and submissions made by Ms Poole and Ms Caplan, particularly as I reviewed some of the committee of the whole debate of May 28, 1992. Might I also say to the member for Mississauga South that I share very much some of the concerns and sentiments she expressed. I say, quite frankly, that at the end of the day Bill 121 is going to have a negative impact in the great scheme of things in terms of housing and affordable housing for people in this province. Many people have attested to that and have set out the rationale for that conclusion. It will certainly be a matter of debate.

I come to a point the member for Mississauga South raised with respect to a particular issue. She said the government is approaching and proceeding on Bill 121 with its ideological blinkers on. I want to address that theme, if I can, for a few moments in relation to matters that surround energy, particularly in environmental issues.

Quite frankly, I read with some amazement the Hansard of last Thursday in committee of the whole. I read the comments recorded therein that the honourable minister raised in the House. Let me try to start at the back and work to where I want to go with this. I start with this. The minister says:

"For anyone to tell people in the energy conservation business and the water conservation business that these simple" -- and I want to come back to that phrase -- "that these simple...additions to our tools for energy and water conservation are ruled out economically by this legislation is absolutely revolting."

Well, the minister may find me and some of my comments revolting, save and except for the fact that she was referring to these simple items -- the $12 to $20 items. In that context I share wholeheartedly and it follows from that --

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, no.

Mr McClelland: She's saying, no, but in the context of Hansard, as I read it over the weekend and read it now, it was in respect of those small items.

Let me back up even a paragraph earlier. Help me to understand the dichotomy here. The minister is somewhat indignant that people would suggest that Bill 121 is an impediment, and I know in that context she was referring to some specific comments made about small capital items and saying that someone would have the temerity to even suggest it to the companies. But as we go backwards she says this as well:

"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," suggesting that this is going to cause problems in terms of energy investment.

I want to draw to your attention what the minister said earlier on in her comments. She throws it all back at landlords. The fact of the matter is, and the minister knows this very well, that other organizations -- I refer only to one and it's been read into the record by the member for Eglinton. The Ontario Natural Gas Association, for one, read into the record its concerns with respect to Bill 121. I want to walk through a couple of very brief scenarios in terms of energy conservation, and not in terms of the small ticket items but the big ticket items. Those things require substantial capital and, I might add, not necessarily to be invested in by the tenants. Therein lies a philosophical argument that I think bears credibility.

The Minister of Housing says, "If the tenants are helping invest in it, surely they should get some return on their investment in that." But herein lies another scenario. In many cases landlords are saying they are prepared to come in with new money and try and put into place some very significant energy conservation initiatives, and they fear they will suffer. I say this word and I use it advisedly, that the landlord says: "We'll put in our new money. We'll realize the savings in the operation of the building and then we'll suffer the indignity of having that money taken away from us."

It has nothing to do with the ongoing operations. This is new money brought into the equation. I know that's difficult, and the minister is sort of looking sceptical, but understand that's the scenario that's out there right now.

The member for Eglinton spoke very well, as I read the Hansard, about the potential that currently exists in terms of job creation. The fact of the matter is that there are commitments presently sitting on tables in the order of $1 billion over the next five years for energy conservation initiatives that very clearly have been said by those people who are prepared to invest that the money will not go in light of Bill 121.

The minister shakes her head. I did not say that; it's the people who are prepared to put their money on the line to do it. They are the ones who are saying it. You can shake your head and you can deny it all you want, you can bury your head in the sand, but the reality is that the people who are prepared to do it are saying that unless there is some assurance that they won't have that money snatched back from them, they will not proceed with those projects.

What they're saying, among other things, is, "We're prepared to put capital into projects in buildings that will save Hydro money." What does that do? It allows Hydro, in the final analysis, to take that money and put it elsewhere. Hydro can save money it can invest in other things. In light of Bill 121, what happens is that Hydro has to come in spend money to produce energy that could otherwise be saved, and who ends up winning? Nobody ends up winning.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The bill doesn't do what you're claiming.

Mr McClelland: It's absurd for the minister to sit there and shake her head and say that's not reality. The reality is that in the marketplace today, if you talk to people, it provides an opportunity. I am amazed, quite frankly, that the amendment to subsection 24(4) put in by the member for Eglinton was defeated and voted against by the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment.

I want to try to focus my comments on that point and that point simply. It is absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is that people in Hydro have done an impact study. The impact study done by Hydro asks the question, what will be the impact of Bill 121 on energy management programs that it is seeking to initiate in this province? The impact study reveals that the 240 megawatts which Hydro expected to achieve through its programs, many of them such as the showerhead programs, lightbulbs etc, will in all probability not happen in light of Bill 121. That's a Hydro-commissioned study, and representation has been made by the Ontario Natural Gas Association and others of a similar nature.

My point is simply that the failure to assure new capital the opportunity of return on their investment, the opportunity to not have that money snatched back from them basically sends out a message, and the net effect of that is that the money will not be invested. You live in a dream world if you think people are going to put new money into projects and have no assurance.

I understand that we're going to say, and the minister said this, "We feel that 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, the landlord in fact is working out an arrangement," and so on and that everybody will be happy at end of the day. I paraphrased that very loosely.

Then the question remains, and I leave it rhetorically, I suppose, if you're so sure about that, why could you not incorporate that legislatively to give the assurance to people out there in the marketplace who have been sitting around, waiting, literally sitting on millions upon millions of dollars, wanting to move forward, having letters of commitment, ready to create new jobs that are desperately needed, pump money into the economy and save energy, something that is environmentally desirable? They have not been able to somehow get the message through to the government that, as the member for Mississauga South said so very well, has these ideological binders on and says: "I'm sorry, we have our program and we don't want to listen to reality. We have made up our minds and we're not prepared to consider the reality of the business equation out there."

1730

In light of that, I say to the Minister of Housing, you are doing a disservice to the working women and men of this province, who are losing job opportunities by your intransigence, and by not allowing some sanity to prevail in this instance you are preventing job creation literally as we speak. There are opportunities sitting waiting to happen, that are not going to happen, and jobs will be lost as a result of this.

Energy conservation programs will be forfeited, and at the end of the day we'll have thrown away opportunities because of some people who've quite frankly made up their minds that they don't want to listen to anybody else who might want to come to them and present in a very logical, empirical fashion, lay down the numbers, have an opportunity to meet with staff, meet with the minister, meet with officials of the government and present to them in an objective, rational fashion and say: "Will you at least listen? Will you at least take an opportunity to look at this and understand what you're doing?" The answer has been: "No, we're not interested. We have our plans. We're going to proceed with them and it doesn't matter what the cost is."

The cost is significant, and in this case it falls entirely on the Minister of Housing to bear responsibility for that. You can be as smug as you want about it, but the reality is that in the absence of providing some assurance that those moneys will be returned, you're costing jobs and you're curtailing investment, and the investment that has already been put into these projects is being stopped, literally as we speak.

Mr Turnbull: First of all, I'd like to get on record a statement about where the Conservative Party stands with regard to rental housing. We stand very clearly for the need for safe, clean, well-maintained and affordable housing, but unfortunately this bill doesn't deliver on those prerequisites.

Let's just turn for the moment to the problems with the existing Liberal rent control legislation that Bill 4 replaced. We know that when the NDP came to power, the existing Liberal legislation did encourage, to some extent, the sale of buildings. We know the appeal process that existed under Bill 51 at the time was incredibly slow and frustrated tenants and landlords. In some cases, there were applications in for some two and three years. This had the effect that tenants were sometimes hit with some significantly large back-rent bills which they couldn't afford to pay if they hadn't in fact been paying on account to the landlord.

Also, the existing Bill 51 that Bill 4 replaced encouraged cosmetic repairs to the building, which was not the intent of any legislation. I don't blame the Liberals for that; it is just unfortunately one of the things that occurred. It also allowed for very significant increases in rents, which sometimes caused hardship.

I'd like to quote a tenant advocate by the name of Richard Fink from an article he wrote for the Rent Review Newsletter:

"Liberal rent review did not fall from the sky, but was created by the bureaucrats who had been at the Housing ministry prior to the change of government. They were told to take a 'different' direction. Their efforts resulted in a transformation of the anti-gouging PC legislation into a licence to increase rents five times the rate of inflation."

That may have been some hyperbole, but nevertheless it had some elements of truth in it.

Let's turn to this legislation, Bill 121. We know it's an extremely badly drafted piece of legislation. In point of fact, the government itself has brought in some 200 amendments to its own bill since it brought it forward, which shows it is clearly incompetent, in that it needs to make that kind of change. I guess they would probably argue that it shows how they were receptive to changes, but unfortunately the changes they made did not reflect the wishes of the people who came before our committee. We know that tenants or landlords expected different changes. It certainly didn't satisfy them.

This legislation is extremely complicated and confusing. I would suggest there are many members of this Legislature who do not understand the bill, and I would certainly suggest that the average tenant and the average landlord in this province could not conceivably understand this legislation. So what is this going to produce? It's going to produce a gold-mine for landlords and for accountants.

We know the legislation has some glaring shortcomings. The vast majority of tenants and landlords are absolutely honest and decent people, yet this legislation sets forth an adversarial relationship between the landlords and the tenants. It's too broad. It's trying to regulate those few unscrupulous landlords who hurt tenants. What it does is hurt all tenants and all landlords.

It ignores the increases over which landlords have no control and these are very often increases in costs which are controlled by the government: hydro costs, property taxes and insurance. We have noted that the government seems totally reluctant to offer any sort of legislation which will control those costs at, for example, the rate of inflation; I mean by that, municipal taxes or utility costs which certainly the government has tremendous control over.

We've been told that over the next three years Ontario Hydro will have a 44% increase in rates, yet this legislation completely ignores that fact. Indeed, we're told there's a rolling average for a cost pass-through, which tenants don't understand and many landlords don't understand. It means this year some tenants will be paying as much as a 9% increase in a year of inflation of less than 2%. Tenants feel pretty hurt by that.

Rent increases are set by the government and it just ignores the state of the building. We have buildings that are in good condition where in fact this could be just pure profit for the landlord and we have buildings that are in incredibly bad condition which will mean absolute financial ruin for the landlord and deteriorating buildings for the tenants.

During the committee hearings I pointed out that the skewing of legislation in favour of landlords who owned newly renovated buildings would do nothing for the buildings that were most in need of repairs. It ignores such aspects of style or obsolescence. Out-of-date is something that will mean nothing to a landlord now, because the only possible items he can get any cost pass-through for are those basic elements of the building that require capital repair as a matter of course. We note that we have had no adequate definition of what the bill means by such basic terms as "neglect," "inadequate maintenance," or "necessary."

All this does is increase the bureaucracy and, gosh, is this ever a government which clings to bureaucracy. It loves bureaucracy. You would have every single person in the province working for the government, because that is the socialist agenda.

Mr Mahoney: At $300 a day.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, indeed, at $300 a day, like Jack Layton. Maybe there might be some people who would be very pleased to do that, but we're talking about people who can't afford the rent they're paying now.

The old system of rent review has been costing us $43 million a year to administer. Surely we can find better uses for the money and the use should be to make sure those people who are underprivileged and who don't have enough to pay their rents should be helped.

I'd like to quote from a presentation made at the public hearings from the members of the Rent Review Hearings Board: "Board's concerns over the absence of an independent appeal tribunal mechanism within the proposed Rent Control Act: Those parties who most need an affordable, accessible and expeditious appeal mechanism will not be served. The vast majority of unrepresented tenants and small landlords cannot afford the costly court appeal process, the costs of which are counted in the tens of thousands of dollars."

My constituents who are tenants have complained that the legislation does not have sufficient avenues for appeal decisions made to rent officers. They wonder if there are sufficient officers with proper qualifications and, indeed, what those qualifications will be.

1740

I'd like to quote Bob Gosschalk, the president of the Federation of North York Tenants Associations: "To us, this limited right of appeal is a most undemocratic and autocratic process. Instead of rent officers, independent panels should be set up to decide appeals." Quite simply, the bill should be repealed and the government should start all over again.

Turning to the question of consultation, from the annual report from 1991 of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario:

"We learned, first hand, that when it comes to dealing with the NDP, you must first throw out accepted government affairs practices. This new government invented its own protocol, and it was quite unlike anything we've experienced with previous governments.

"Examples? An NDP commitment to 'meaningful consultation' with the private sector proved a thinly veiled lie. Access to top government officials was restricted every step of the way.

"We were forced to participate in public hearings that were biased in favour of NDP views. And, rather than discuss rental housing problems and solutions directly with us, government preferred to draw us into high-profile media warfare, fuelling the debate with exaggerations and untruths which portrayed landlords as little better than criminals."

Turning to the question of affordability, we need affordable housing for the less privileged. This legislation does absolutely nothing to address the question of affordability. There are questions of prudence in devoting so much time, energy and resources to controlling luxury residential rents, which is so inappropriate. We need a credible alternative to ensure that people are adequately housed within their fiscal means. This does not solve any of the affordability problems. The lowest-income people are often paying 40%, 50% and even 60% of their income on rent, and they're ignored by this legislation. Instead, this government continues to push for expensive, ill-targeted non-profit and co-op housing.

Turning to non-profit housing, let us see what the government is doing with the taxpayers' dollars. This is the same government that will only give a 1% increase this year to hospitals and schools and yet this is what it's spending its money on. Non-profit housing costs grew from $33 million in 1987-88 to an estimated $620 million in 1992-93. That is a 1,780% increase in five years. Indeed, when you project out according to the government's own numbers, you can see that we will be spending into the billions of dollars by 1995.

We've still got 53,000 tenants waiting on lists and yet we have empty so-called non-profit apartments. Is it appropriate that we should be spending money on so-called non-profit apartments to house the likes of the Marilyn Churleys and the Jack Laytons of this world? These are people who are getting huge incomes. I will say that both of them have now given up, under great public pressure, this public trough. But we see Mr Layton has moved on to a $300-a-day trough; he can afford to give it up.

I took the trouble before I stood up today to look at some of the news releases that have been issued by the Ministry of Housing with respect to non-profit housing. I have here an announcement dated April 30 of this year where they were going to build 11 apartment units at 570 Coxwell Avenue. The total capital cost was $1.3 million. To put that into perspective as to what that costs per unit, that's $118,181 per unit. The operating subsidy is to be $23,094 per year. That is $1,924 per month per unit. That is $772 more than the government's own study which it commissioned from Royal Lepage dated April 22, 1991, and I would like to quote, "Market rent in the Metro area in new buildings" -- I'm ignoring the average; I'm saying the highest, the new buildings -- "was $1,152." But we are spending $772 more per unit. This is money that could help single mothers who can't afford the rent they're paying in rental housing. This is what we're doing.

I turn to the next example. We have another unit which was announced on March 13 of this year for 14 units. The cost of this is $1.7 million. That's $121,000 per unit. The operating subsidy is $17,791 a year, which is $1,483 a month. This money is money that is just going out the window. Instead of us spending what the actual average rental is in Toronto, $704 per unit, based on an 800-square-foot unit, we are spending, because the socialists have their hand in the till, $1,483 per unit.

Next one: Here's a lovely one. An advocacy group which belongs to the Canadian Auto Workers is receiving $50,000 to advocate for non-profit housing. These are the highest-paid manual workers in the province. These are people who are now taxed by the government's own supertax. They are in the upper income levels. Yet these are the people they find necessary to give subsidies to to advocate so-called non-profit housing.

Now we have January 30, 12 apartments and 13 residential beds for single people. The capital cost is $2.6 million. If I assume the residential beds are the full unit, which they're not, it's still $104,000 per unit, which is $1,110 per month. Give me a break. If you open the newspaper any day of the week you can see rental apartments for $700 or $800. You are not living in the real world, and where you're getting this money from is the taxpayers, who can ill afford it, and you're not giving it to the people who do need it, and that is the single mothers and the people who are struggling, the working poor. Instead, you'd sooner give it to your union buddies.

On October 25 of last year we had 443 apartments announced in North York. This in fact is in my own riding. A bunch of union people got together on a project that was not going to be built by the private sector, because they've killed the private sector. They're spending $146,953 per unit and they're going to give as a subsidy $1,486.

Now let me talk about the subsidy, because this is the significance of it. That is the subsidy; that is not the amount of money that ignores any rent people are supposed to pay, and these units are supposed to include so-called market rents. If you add in one penny of rent that is paid by the tenants, you have to say that the cost of operating these units is even higher. Why are taxpayers paying for these boondoggles? Why on earth would we build rental units?

I've heard an absolutely half-baked answer and I've seen half-baked answers from the Minister of Housing suggesting, "We're investing in the future." Let me tell you, Minister of Housing -- through you, Mr Speaker, of course -- you don't know what you're talking about when you suggest that the public sector is going to go out and build something at a significantly higher cost than the private sector can build it and then you say, "We're investing in the future." You're wasting the taxpayers' money. You don't know what you're doing. You should resign now, because this is money that is inappropriately spent. This is the reason you have a record level of deficit.

1750

The Acting Speaker: First, I would like the honourable member to address the Speaker. There are some provocative messages being sent and indeed it would be much better if you'd address the Speaker. I know the time allocation is running short.

Mr Turnbull: I'll turn to the last example I'm giving, which is November 27, 1990. This is 79 homes to be built at a cost of $11,800,000. That's $149,367.00. The operating subsidy -- I'm not talking about what the total cost is; I'm talking about the subsidy per unit -- is $1,975.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): What about the Reichmanns?

Mr Turnbull: I have somebody asking, "What about the Reichmanns?" Yes, what about the Reichmanns? This is an attack on the working poor and the middle class. It isn't an attack on the Reichmanns. They have their tax shelters. You keep on telling us about that. But in fact this is how we attack the middle class and the working poor, the people we disadvantage by this kind of legislation. We're finding the pigs at the trough, and they're so deep in the trough they need a snorkel to breathe, because this is wasting taxpayers' money.

How can you justify spending $1,956 a month in subsidy? Most of the people watching this probably pay half of that, or only a little more than half of that, in their rent, in a rental housing unit, yet we are spending this on the so-called non-profit housing. If this is non-profit, I'd hate to think what you would do if you were building anything for profit. The government doesn't understand the word "profit," because it will kill anything to do with profit.

This is what happened in Britain. This is what happened in all the countries of Europe that saw socialism creeping in and destroying their economies. It's wonderful to see Europe shaking off the shackles of socialism, because socialists spend money like this. They spend money on $300-a-day consultants like Jack Layton. This is what the government understands. It doesn't understand prudent fiscal management, the kind of prudent fiscal management the Conservatives gave.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: It's interesting to hear the level of shouting and catcalls that come from them.

I'll tell you one thing: The level of your deficit today is two fifths of the total budget when the Tories went out of government. We were prudent fiscal managers. Even the NDP members in my riding have to admit that in those days we had a very good government that knew how to manage the economy. This is not an example of how to manage the economy: spending close to $2,000 in subsidy per unit, even including subsidizing units for the likes of Jack Layton who earns well over $100,00 a year.

This is what the government understands as management. You are in outer space if this is what you call management. The trouble is, you have never had to meet a payroll in your life. You don't understand this is where you're wasting money. If Floyd wonders how he is going to get his money, he just has to stop this kind of abuse.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time for the Progressive Conservative Party. The official opposition now, the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: The minister is welcome to stay on this side of the House. I'd be delighted to have you here.

That seemed like one small step for Mr Turnbull and a giant leap somewhere for an argument that I kind of lost. He called you everything but communist, you have to admit. He left the McCarthyism side of things out of it.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): One giant step to the Reform Party.

Mr Mahoney: It might've been that, actually.

One of the things I find quite interesting about the argument that deals with non-profit housing is that I was on the board of Peel Non-Profit Housing for almost 10 years and was president of the board for the last year I was on council. What the Conservative Party fails to understand is that if it were not for the non-profit program over the past 10 or 12 years, the private sector would've lost out on an awful lot of good opportunities for building good, quality homes in the community. I've long been a supporter of that method and of co-ops and of delivering good affordable housing.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Flip-flop.

Mr Mahoney: Take the rest of the day off, Mr Minister of Transportation; nice to see you come and nice to see you go.

I've long been a supporter of that particular method of delivering housing. What concerns me, though, is that this bill and this government have created an equal polarization on the other side of the issue to the extent that really they seem to create the atmosphere that all landlords are bad people. That atmosphere was put forward in committee.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: George, it was. There were some very acrimonious debates that took place in Kingston, in Sudbury and London where the whole attitude of this government was that if you're a landlord (a) you're rich and (b) you don't care about your tenants.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Why are you saying that?

Mr Mahoney: Well, that's exactly the atmosphere they created. Mr Speaker, you and I know that simply is not true. The vast majority of landlords, I might add, particularly when you get outside Metropolitan Toronto, are small entrepreneurs who perhaps saved over the years to put together enough money to simply buy a three- or four-apartment unit. They do the repairs on their own. If they're unable to do that in some instances -- particularly in Sudbury, I recall a lady coming before us from one of the communities outside of Sudbury telling the story of how they had planned to buy this particular apartment building as their retirement nest egg only to find out that under NDP rent control the value of their building was being destroyed. You don't just destroy the value of a piece of property.

Shake your head all you want, Minister. I find it interesting that a minister carrying a bill needs to chirp in the House at members of the opposition putting forward very legitimate concerns of members of the public. Perhaps you don't want to listen to those particular people in the public, but that's our job as opposition. You should know that as well as any.

They destroy the value of the property. Unfortunately, coming close to 6 of the clock this evening, I won't have the opportunity to go into this, but I'll be delighted to pick up on it tomorrow. They destroy the value of that property with the end result being that they want to turn it into some form of government-assisted housing. What you're not doing and could be doing, if you truly wanted to provide new housing units in the community, is start flowing the non-profit allocations out to the communities and the private sector. You're not doing that. You've just created a logjam. You reannounced things in Homes Now that were announced by our government. You've been in office over a year and a half and you're not flowing the money out to the community.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Shame on you.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that's what they should be doing.

Mr Speaker, being 6 of the clock, I would adjourn this debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member and his party will have the remaining time tomorrow.

It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.