The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCOTT GOODYEAR

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate Mr Scott Goodyear, a native of Newmarket, on his outstanding performance at the Indy 500 on May 24. Scott came in a very close second, only 43/1,000 of a second behind the winner, Al Unser Jr, making it the closest finish ever in the 76-year history of the race.

Scott's performance was remarkable not only because of his superb driving skills, but because he began the race at the very back of the pack. He came from behind, and with the support of an excellent pit crew was able to weave his way to within six feet of winning.

Scott can also take pride in having had the best finish ever for a Canadian. At a rally in Nathan Phillips Square, Scott proclaimed that he is proud to be a Canadian and he hoped to be able to raise the awareness of other Canadian drivers. "All these drivers have the talent," he said, "they just need the opportunity."

Scott's next stop in the Indy car circuit is Detroit, Michigan, on June 7, where he will be facing a brand-new course. Canadians can welcome Scott home in July for the Molson Indy here in Toronto.

Congratulations once again to Scott and his family and best wishes for the duration of the Indy car circuit.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an industry that generates approximately $7 billion worth of mineral wealth annually in this province. The financial contribution of the mining industry has a positive impact on the communities in which mining operates and a highly significant bearing on the entire provincial economy. This industry's financial contribution is certainly a source of pride and achievement as we mark Ontario Mining Week in this province.

Unfortunately, the profitability of the mining industry has been seriously eroded by Ontario Hydro costs, which are rising at an alarming rate, and the Workers' Compensation Board and other provincial government mandated costs that are escalating to levels totally unrelated to the improvements in industry performance. The industry is struggling to offset these negative provincial government factors as well as the new labour relations proposals, the new environmental bill of rights, employment equity, proposals to compensate workers for stress, and ongoing environmental municipal-industrial strategy for abatement and clean air program regulations pertaining to the quality of water and air emissions.

The provincial government must stop chipping away at mining's profitability with non-productive and uneconomical legislation. The profitability and competitiveness of mining must be enhanced if the industry is to continue with this positive contribution to the society and economy of Ontario.

ALEXANDRA PARK GYMNASTIC TEAM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Alexandra Park is an Ontario housing community of more than 2,000 residents in my riding of Fort York. The community and I have worked together to face many problems, but today I am pleased to report a success story.

In an effort led by community resident and Canadian Olympic gymnast Lillian Chausse, Alexandra Park had its first gymnastic team this year. The team swept the medal winnings at the Metropolitan Toronto competitions, bringing home 188 awards and the team gold.

With these beginnings, the team seems assured of a bright future. Next year the team will be expanded to include young men.

I would like to recognize the motivation and commitment of the 45 young women, aged five to 17, who worked together to achieve this victory for themselves and their community. Congratulations to the Alexandra Park gymnastic team.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I am quoting from "Verdict of Coroner's Jury":

"We, the undersigned, the jury serving on the inquest into the death of Maciek Jaitoszuk, aged seven, held at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, on the 6th day of April 1992 by Dr William Westwick, have inquired and determined the following: cause of death -- massive head injuries -- accidentally as a result of being struck and run over by his school bus, from which he had just disembarked."

To protect the lives of innocent children, members of this Legislature should exercise their responsibilities quickly and decisively to ensure zero tolerance for school bus fatalities. The Minister of Education must act now to implement the coroner's recommendations. To this end, I will be introducing a bill today to implement a major recommendation of the inquest. These amendments to the Education Act and the Highway Traffic Act require school boards to appoint a monitor, other than the driver, for each bus used to transport its elementary school students and prohibit transportation of children on school buses unless a school bus monitor is present on the bus. The act establishes safety requirements for monitors to direct children in getting on and off the bus safely and in safely crossing the road.

Mr Minister, on behalf of all parents, please take this bill seriously.

1340

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today is the 51st anniversary of the death of Lou Gehrig. The same man who said, "I am the luckiest man in the world," when he retired from the New York Yankees in 1939, died of the disease known as ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, more commonly referred to as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, is as common as multiple sclerosis.

ALS is a fatal neuromuscular disease that strikes one in every 1,000 Canadian adults. The average life expectancy of a person with ALS is two and a half years. At present there is no known cure or cause for ALS, although new evidence published last week may bring us closer to discovering the cause of ALS and perhaps even a cure.

For the past seven years the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Canada has sponsored the annual cornflower campaign to raise funds for medical research. To commemorate Lou Gehrig's disease, June 2 is the kickoff of the cornflower campaign. I would like to urge all Ontarians to donate to this very worthy cause. Volunteers from all across Ontario will be offering a symbolic cornflower in exchange for a donation to ALS.

ALS and the cornflower campaign hold a special meaning to me because my father died this past December of ALS. To watch an individual succumb to the effects of ALS is a painful and tragic way to see a loved one face his final days.

Cornflower Day this year will be this Friday and Saturday, June 5 and 6. The money raised will be used for research into the cause and care of ALS, and to increase public awareness.

When you see the volunteers with the blue cornflowers, please give generously so that together we may eradicate this devastating disease.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to take part in the celebration of Italian National Day. In a referendum on June 2, 1946, Italians chose to become a republic, ending the monarchy in Italy. In Italy this is a national holiday and the official celebration is held in Rome. The parades and air shows are televised throughout the country. Here in Canada celebrations are also held, usually the first Sunday in June, and there are many events in which Canadian Italians participate.

There are more than 460,000 people of Italian heritage living in Ontario. They have made a significant contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of this province. The love of art, music, education and architecture which Italians brought with them has enriched each community in which they have chosen to live.

Many Italians have helped to build the homes and infrastructure we all now enjoy. [Remarks in Italian] The new generation is entering into all areas of community life, including the political structures. I join in celebrating Italian National Day with pride and in recognition of all who have made a contribution to our heritage.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 46 years ago, June 2, 1946, the establishment of the democratic republic of Italy. June 2 is of great historic significance and sentimental value to our citizens of Italian heritage and to the people of Italy, not only a country of monumental buildings, famous explorers and noted scientists, but also a trusted friend and ally, loyal trading partner and committed supporter of democratic and civil rights around the world.

We recognize the important contributions Italo-Canadians have made to the cultural and economic development of Ontario and indeed of Canada. Our province has become enriched because our Italian friends, on coming here, brought with them the love of music, art, architecture and education.

More than that, they have strengthened the pillars of our multicultural society by adding their traditional respect for hard work and family life. We have therefore benefited greatly form their participation in sports, business, professional life and, more recently, government and law.

To all our citizens who celebrate this very important anniversary, we say [remarks in Italian].

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Apartment buildings are presently assessed as commercial property. A study by a subcommittee of Metropolitan Toronto city council showed that apartment buildings pay up to four times the property tax per square foot on floor space that single-occupancy dwellings do, 25% of average rent goes to property taxes and property taxes on apartments would need to be cut by as much as 60% to bring them in line with homes.

Tenant constituents rightfully complain that it is unfair that they pay higher property taxes than home owners, condo owners and co-op residents while at the same time receiving fewer services. I agree. It is not right. So far this government has shown no interest in correcting this situation, presumably because the government is the beneficiary.

I wish to quote some of the newsletter of the Federation of North York Tenants Associations:

"The cause of this unfair assessment classification is the insistence by the NDP government to retain an unfair assessment classification that prevents equalization between apartment units, condo units and single-family dwellings. This unfair assessment basis means higher rents for tenants. If this government is truly concerned with high rents, then let them remove this inequity in property taxes."

COURTICE CARNIVAL

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Courtice is the fastest-growing community in my riding. Hundreds upon hundreds of people are moving there from the Toronto area. In fact, one of my constituents from Courtice is employed in this chamber and no doubt monitors my performance with a very critical eye on a daily basis.

Courtice is also served by a very fine local newspaper, the Courtice News, which is read by hundreds of my constituents.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Thousands.

Mr Mills: Thousands; I beg your pardon. My statement is about this year's Courtice Carnival being held this coming Saturday from 10 am to 3 pm at Courtice Secondary School. The event offers something for the entire family. There's a flea market, shows by a children's performer, and one of my favourites will be a live country and bluegrass band. The children will be able to enjoy the inflatable bouncing castle as well as midway games. Finally, the Re/Max hot air balloon will be onsite and they won't need any hot air from me.

The proceeds of this event all go to the Courtice community building fund, an example of what people can do when they get together to do something for their community. Please join us on Saturday for this wonderful, upbeat, happy day. Saturday, Courtice.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Ontario residents enjoy one of the world's best justice systems. This is due, in no small part, to the competence and dedication of its judges and to the strong public interest in the administration of justice. However, both provincially appointed judges and members of the public have some concerns about the process by which complaints about judges are considered.

The Ontario Judicial Council, a very important justice institution although perhaps one of the least known, is responsible for investigating complaints against provincially appointed judges, masters and Small Claims Court judges. The council is a body composed of judges, laypersons and a lawyer.

In 1991 the provincial judges submitted a report to the government expressing concerns related to the composition of the Ontario Judicial Council and the fairness of its procedures in investigating and hearing complaints against the provincial judiciary.

Further, some members of the public have expressed concern about comments made by individual judges and have questioned whether the judiciary, as a whole, has the experience or the training to deal sensitively with cases involving women or minority groups. The public must have confidence in the complaints process, and I have sympathy for those who find the existing process remote and intimidating.

Fundamental to any consideration of the complaints and discipline process is the principle of judicial independence. Judges must be free from improper pressures from government and members of the public that would jeopardize their impartiality. The government can, however, provide appropriate powers and structures to facilitate the exercise of their responsibilities.

The government is reviewing the composition, powers and procedures of the judicial council for the purpose of identifying whether it needs to be fairer, more effective and more accessible in responding to complaints against judges.

Fundamental to this review are the views of judges, the general public and of those groups who have expressed specific concerns about the complaints process. I am therefore announcing today the release of a discussion paper which canvasses a number of options for changes to the composition, powers and procedures of the judicial council.

1350

This paper presents no preferred course of action. The options outlined are intended to assist the discussion and do not exclude other possible options. The government will not take a position on the issues until it has heard the views of all those interested in participating in the consultation.

The senior judges of the province, judges' representatives and the lay and lawyer members of the judicial council have already been consulted in a preliminary way about the issues outlined in the paper, and their views have been of considerable assistance to us in setting out those issues. I look forward to further consultation with them and to consultation with all other interested groups and individuals in our review of this important justice institution.

All of these views will be given careful consideration, but I think it is fair to indicate that from my perspective the complaints process must ensure that judges are held accountable, and are seen to be held accountable, for their conduct as judges and for their comments. I believe the process must be more accessible and should involve more lay members in order that the public understand the process and have confidence in its fairness and effectiveness. I trust that my frankness in sharing these thoughts will encourage a full and open discussion of the issues.

Both the process of public discussion about the judicial council and the identification of needed reforms will serve to further public confidence in and understanding of the justice system in Ontario. The justice system is strengthened by enhanced public confidence and understanding, and this initiative is just one of a number which we have undertaken to that end.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): First of all, there are a number of comments the minister stated today with which we agree, and I just want to reiterate those statements with which we agree. I'm quoting from his press release.

"'I believe that the complaints process must ensure that judges are properly accountable, and are seen to be accountable, for their conduct as judges and for their comments.'"

Another statement says, "Both provincially appointed judges and members of the public have stated concerns about the process by which complaints about judges are considered." We agree with that.

A further comment states, "'Some members of the public consider the complaints process remote and intimidating.'" Very true.

In addition, he says: "'I believe that the process must be more accessible and should involve more lay members, in order that the public understand and have confidence in its fairness and effectiveness. The complaints process must be seen to be fair, effective and open.'"

These are statements this minister made when he was opposition critic. He's been there now for close to 20 months and he still has not done anything.

Last week, in a response to a statement, I raised some concerns about the Ontario Judicial Council and one particular mediation of that council, and the minister did not respond whatsoever to my concerns at that point. Our leader asked a question in the House, and the question was answered basically by the statement that was made today. Again yesterday our leader raised a question about sexual harassment in the courthouse in Belleville with respect to a judge, and again, the Premier, who was here, in the absence of the Attorney General, indicated that he would ask the Attorney General to inquire into this particular issue.

What we have seen here today is a statement that this minister is going to consult. He has indicated all along that he has been consulting. He has stated what the problem was from the days he was in opposition, and he is again underlining the fact that he is the minister of inertia.

I want to direct a question to the Premier. The Premier sat here and undertook to our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs McLeod, that he was going to look into her questions about sexual harassment and the particular circumstances of the case that were raised, most explicitly in the Law Times last week and again this week, where new facts were brought out which indicate even the mediation agreement that was established by the judges has been breached.

The question is there and it remains: Will the Premier ensure that the Ministry of the Attorney General will have zero tolerance in sexual harassment, judges or no judges? This is a situation that must be dealt with. It is not the normal type of inquiry that should be dealt with under the composition of the judicial council as it presently exists.

I urge the Premier, I urge the Attorney General, and more particularly the minister responsible for women's issues, to conduct an inquiry, to make a special circumstance out of this case, where they will examine a grave injustice to a female employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General in the Belleville courthouse. We have raised this last week, we have raised it again this week, and although we know we need reform with the Ontario Judicial Council, there is a specific case of injustice which the minister and the Premier, by closing their eyes, are continuing to concur in unless they respond to the questions that are raised. The Premier knows that a mediation of the Ontario Judicial Council has been breached. We know there are a lot of questions that exist out there, and we are demanding at the present time that the specific circumstances of this case be examined by the Attorney General and we would ask the Premier to order the Attorney General to do something in that situation immediately.

We have seen earlier, last week, where even in the Ontario Human Rights Commission we have an independent report saying there is racism in the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Now we have sexual harassment in the Ministry of the Attorney General. What is this government all about? They say one thing and they do another.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the few minutes left, I would say that I hope that in researching this and in looking at a new approach to it the Attorney General and the government would take a different approach, putting people on there whom the judges can feel they'd be treated fairly by and who will not be so related to the present existing government that they'll consider they're sitting in a Star Chamber.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): When a jury makes a decision the Attorney General doesn't like, he initiates a study into the jury system and he impugns the integrity of that jury. This statement is in that vein. Now we're going to have a study of the judicial council.

The public and judges "appear" -- that's the word the Attorney General uses -- "to have concerns." The one thing I'd like to ask the Attorney General is, do they have concerns or don't they have concerns? What does "appear to have concerns" mean? Surely if you're going to embark upon this you have something concrete to tell us, not that in some nice, fuzzy language they "appear to have concerns."

With respect to women's issues and minorities, the right approach should not be to take judges and try to train them. We should be making sure that we're appointing judges who are the proper people to be sitting in our courts. We should be appointing judges who have been distinguished lawyers in the province of Ontario, not appointed from other provinces, and who are sensitive to these issues, who we know will be sensitive to these issues and who we know are proper appointments.

The other thing I find very interesting in this statement is the reference by the Attorney General that, "Fundamental to any consideration of the complaints and discipline process is the principle of judicial independence." I can tell you that the Chief Justice of this province questions whether under this Attorney General there is any judicial independence.

This Attorney General and this government control the purse strings of the courts. They have created a huge court bureaucracy, and if anything subjects the courts and the independence of the courts to criticism, if anything affects that independence, it's the fact that the Attorney General controls that court system -- not the judges who run the courts, not the judges who have to make the decisions, but the Attorney General who allocates the money, who is the biggest litigator in this province.

I have some reservations, and I urge the Attorney General to read the remarks in The Advocates' Society Journal about what the Chief Justice of this province says.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It's amazing.

Mr Harnick: The Treasurer is saying to me, "Oh, it's amazing," I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I urge the Treasurer to take a look at what the Chief Justice of this province says and read the advocates' journal and you'll see what he says about judicial independence. Maybe you'll learn something.

Hon Mr Laughren: I won't read that journal. Never.

Mr Harnick: Don't say, "Never, never." Maybe you'll learn something about whether there's judicial independence in this province.

The other thing is this issue of consultation. We again saw the kind of consultation this government believes in. They appoint people like Jack Layton to lead the right horses to the trough so they can get the answers they want when they go to prepare the legislation they're thinking of preparing. If you're going to embark on consultation, I think you should have consultation with integrity and honesty. Yesterday's announcement surely makes me question whether that's what's going to happen in this process.

1400

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday a 15-month study funded by the Ontario women's directorate and the Ministry of Community and Social Services at a cost of $100,000 was released. This was a very important report that revealed that at least three out of every five female murder victims in Ontario are killed by estranged husbands and boyfriends.

The minister responsible for women's issues did not table this very important report with this Legislature, nor have we had any indication that she intends to do so. I would ask the Speaker to make a ruling on this because I, as critic for women's issues for the official opposition, cannot do my job in this Legislature unless this important information is brought to our attention.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Eglinton will know that there is nothing in the standing orders that compels ministers to make statements in the House with respect to government policy or any other items of importance. There has been a tradition of ministers presenting information in the House, but there is nothing in the standing orders that compels that.

In conclusion, I certainly very much appreciate the concern that the member expresses here today.

CORRECTION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to correct my record of yesterday. During debate on Bill 121, on page 1002 of Hansard, I used the term "landlord" when I intended the word "lawyer." I wish the record to reflect this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member indeed has a valid point of order. It's refreshing to know that members will rise to correct their own record.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In standing order 31 -- I'm asking for your guidance and assistance in this matter. I know even today you've indicated that you cannot compel the minister to make any statement in this Legislature, no matter how important that statement is, and in fact, how it should be done. However, I'm wondering if you might be able to provide some guidance and assistance to me when the Attorney General, without any statement, press release or consultation -- and I have been so informed -- will be increasing, through his ministry, expenses associated with the purchase of homes in this province by 190% at a time when all are in fact trying to encourage purchases. The Attorney General, I believe, without any statement, press release or whatever, is increasing the expenses associated with the purchase of homes. Can you provide any assistance to me as to how that type of information can be provided to members of this Legislature?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga North, I'm not sure of what assistance this will be, but the member may know that there is a budget debate and that there are expenditures that are tabled in the House. Often there's an opportunity to question those expenditures both in the House and in committees. He may wish to avail himself of those opportunities when they appear.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. For what seems to be an eternity, we've been calling on this government to withdraw its unworkable and unenforceable Sunday shopping laws. It appears, from what we hear and read, that the government may well be on the verge of doing just that. Unfortunately, it seems that at the same time as the government contemplates withdrawing its unworkable laws, it's thinking about introducing a whole new set of proposals to sort of cover its retreat from previous commitments.

I would ask the Premier whether or not he would confirm or deny the suggestion that, among other things, this government is considering requiring double pay for retail workers working on Sunday, which would certainly seem to be a move that would not assist the retail sector to compete and which would certainly also create a very different set of conditions for retail workers from all others who are currently working on Sundays.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll have a full statement to make to the House on the issue of Sunday shopping tomorrow.

Mrs McLeod: That's also consistent with what we are hearing, which lends some substance to the other rumours and concerns we are hearing. I have a newspaper advertisement that was taken out recently by a Mr Sydney Brown, who is the general manager of Plasteel Furniture Products Ltd. It's a rather desperate advertisement in which Mr Brown is imploring this government to make a decision about the Sunday shopping law. He wants a decision that will give him a level playing field with other retail establishments.

Our concern is that as the government moves to make certain changes and introduces others, the new set of proposals for Sunday shopping will not create the kind of level playing field Mr Brown and others are looking for. It's quite possible, if our concerns have any basis in reality, that the proposals of the government could favour, for example, large retail establishments at the expense of smaller retailers.

We spoke today with Mr Brown, who took out this newspaper advertisement. Mr Brown is certainly concerned about any prospect of double pay being required for workers working on Sunday. He feels that would be like an extra tax on retailers.

I would ask the Premier what he intends to do to ensure that whatever proposals he announces tomorrow will not discriminate, for example, against smaller retail establishments.

Hon Mr Rae: I have no way of knowing whether Liberal concerns are based on reality or not. To this point, my experience has been that often they are not. All I can say to the honourable member is that rather than try to arouse a lot of various speculation with respect to what is going to be said tomorrow, I would urge the Leader of the Opposition, in her discussions with Mr Brown and others, to simply say that the Premier has indicated that there will be a full statement tomorrow. That remains the case.

Mrs McLeod: It's not surprising that the opposition has difficulty in knowing what reality is for the government when it lurches from one particular set of proposals and commitments to another one.

We're obviously concerned about the fact the government, in looking at Sunday shopping legislation, in responding to what has been literally a hue and cry across this province from people saying the legislation is unworkable, it is unenforceable, it needs to be withdrawn to ensure our retail sector can hope to be able to compete in this very difficult environment, reportedly is looking at another whole set of proposals.

We wonder whether there has been any consultation with people in that same retail sector, who are going to be affected by the proposals, about what these new proposals will mean to them. We wonder, for example, if you're considering implementing the requirement of double pay for Sunday work for retail workers, whether you've looked at the impact of that on the retailers who are now able to be open on Sunday, such as the corner stores or the drugstores. Those are establishments that could well be expected to lose jobs if you bring in a set of proposals that will make it impossible to compete.

So in advance of this government bringing in its proposals, we want to know whether or not this government is looking seriously at its purpose in withdrawing the Sunday shopping legislation, which is to make it possible to compete, to keep jobs open. We want to know whether the government has looked at what the potential job loss might be of any new proposals it might bring in and whether or not it is prepared to consult with the retail sector about any proposals that go beyond simply withdrawing the existing legislation.

Hon Mr Rae: I always listen with great interest to what the honourable member has to say. I would only say her arguments today seem based entirely on speculation in the press. I would say to her that my experience teaches me that's not always the best basis upon which to ask questions.

Mrs McLeod: That gives us some reassurance that what is being speculated in the press right now will not be shown to be reality for this government when the statement is made tomorrow.

1410

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I address my second question to the Premier as well on a quite different subject. Yesterday this city saw once again elements of truancy, disorder and hooliganism from certain groups of young people. There's no question these outbursts of violence are creating a tremendous concern about public safety, but I think the Premier would agree that there are other elements in what we saw yesterday: the reality of youth alienation, youth frustration and almost desperation, because it's very difficult for young people today to feel some sense of optimism about their future. I would ask the Premier if he can tell us how his government intends to respond to last night's events.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are two things we've done and I've indicated already to the House what they are. I've asked my newly appointed parliamentary assistant to make a report to me and to the cabinet with respect to the issue of youth employment. It's my understanding this report will be made to the cabinet this week and action will follow with respect to employment programs.

I would also indicate that we've had extensive discussions with the private sector in this regard and I'm pleased to indicate to the member that the response from the private sector has been extremely positive. I think there's a broad sentiment in the community that we have to work together to deal with this question, and it has a broad basis of support among municipalities and employers. We need to respond together and we will respond together.

I've also asked Mr Lewis to give me a report with respect to the broader issues of race relations in the province. He is going to be making a report to me at the beginning of next week and I look forward to receiving that as well. Both of them are action-oriented documents, action-oriented proposals, and will in fact produce some positive and clear results.

I would say to the honourable member that if she has some suggestions to make with respect to changes in public policy or areas in which we can assist youth, I would be very glad to hear what they are.

Mrs McLeod: It's important to me to impress upon the Premier just how tremendously urgent this situation has already become. We on this side of the House have been trying to raise, constantly and consistently, the realities for young people who are facing a summer now without prospects of employment. I regret to say I believe we're already seeing the result of policies from a government that has made no priority for youth at all. Youth were not mentioned in either the first throne speech or the second throne speech; youth were not mentioned in the budget; youth are not a focus for this government's training programs; they are not a focus for the Treasurer's job creation programs, and even education has been cut back. We recognize that it was in response to a crisis that the government did move to do a study on youth unemployment, but the crisis is already here.

Let me ask the Premier to repeat that assurance and tell us that we will see that report this week and that it will have recommendations for immediate action that will be implemented immediately, to begin to resolve what is an absolutely urgent situation.

Hon Mr Rae: In listening to the cynical asides from her colleague the member for Huron instead of to my answer, perhaps the leader did not hear what I had to say. What I had to say very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition is that there will be a report to cabinet tomorrow by my parliamentary assistant with respect to the issue, which I asked her to address as soon as possible. She has had extensive consultations with private sector employers and others, and there will be a practical suggestion before us which will require an action decision by us and to which we will respond.

I want to assure the honourable member that within the realities we face in terms of overall fiscal policy, which I'm sure in her fairest of fair moments she would accept and understand, this government is responding on the training side, we're responding on the employment side and we are responding as effectively as we can to the issues that are in front of us. To assert, if I may say so, as was clearly implied, that what took place on Toronto Island is somehow the direct fault of this government is something she might want to reflect on in her fairer moments with respect to the realities of public policy and of what is going on in the province today.

Mrs McLeod: If the Premier indicates that he listens very closely to the questions that are being asked and asks the same in return for his answers, I would ask that he reflect on what I was raising in my second question. That was the fact that all the programs this government identifies, whether it's training programs or job creation programs, have not been directed to youth and will not help with the very urgent problem of youth not having jobs this summer.

In a very specific way, coming back to the questions we have been consistently raising in this House, I want to remind the Premier of his own words during the last recession when, incidentally, we had lower rates of youth unemployment than are projected for this summer. The Premier said:

"To add insult to injury, the Treasurer has decided that summer Experience '83, the summer jobs program for students, will receive exactly the same amount of money as in 1982, but the number of jobs to be created will actually drop by 300."

According to our research, this government will certainly not be increasing the amount of money for the summer Experience program, but in fact as we look at the summer job opportunities created by this government, there will be a drop of something in the order of 2,000, even when we don't add in some of the jobs that are lost through cutbacks in things like tree planting programs.

The Premier has a clear route to take some very specific action, and that is to redirect his funding priorities. I would ask the Premier whether he is prepared to take the action this week of redirecting his funding priorities to direct further funding to create jobs for youth over the course of this summer.

Hon Mr Rae: I think, to be fair, and again I'd say this to the honourable member, you've got to look at a range of programs. You can't just pick out one program. You've got to look at an entire range of programs, and when you look at that range of programs, you'll see that the government has continued to fund youth employment programs and we are continuing to look at a range of programs which provide for young people. But I would say to the honourable member, I've asked my parliamentary assistant to look directly at the issues, to look directly at the question of the focus of programs and to deal extensively with the private sector and with municipalities in responding. We will respond and we will respond in a way that I hope will have the support of the honourable member.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour in charge of the Workers' Compensation Board. This morning, Minister, the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation released a study on the financial crisis at the WCB. The study concluded that the WCB has "squandered $660 million since last year and is sinking further into debt at the rate of $100 million per month." Minister, how much more money do you intend to pump into this sinkhole before you do something to control spending at the WCB?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the leader of the third party should be aware that the question of funding and the unfunded liability is one of the issues the board is trying to deal with right now. They are talking to the stakeholders and are putting together questions and those will be before the House when they're finalized.

Mr Harris: You keep talking about funding. You always want to get more money. You always want to raise taxes. You want new fees, new payroll taxes. Not only do Ontario employers today have the highest rate of assessment in the entire country of Canada, but Ontario's WCB, in addition to this, has a debt of $10.3 billion. The study released this morning concluded that the crisis "has been triggered by an unprecedented spending spree creating an expenditure crisis, not a funding problem." Despite this, Mr Minister, the WCB is currently looking at allowing compensation for occupational stress that would cost up to an additional $200 million per year.

Minister, will you immediately place a moratorium on new compensable policies until we figure out how to properly fund and manage those compensable items that are already covered by the WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure the member realizes that it's not our role to run or make the decisions of the board. I want to tell him that the government is closely monitoring the efforts of the board, along with its stakeholders, in finding solutions to its financial situation. I understand the board of directors will soon be considering a consultation report based on the submissions of the stakeholders, and we will take a look at it at that time.

Mr Harris: Mr Minister, yesterday you announced the new asbestos policy for the WCB right in this House. We have heard ample evidence that the WCB cannot control its own spending. What's worse, it won't even reveal where the money is going. They refuse to release their internal audits to the employers' council. They're the ones who are funding WCB and have this liability facing them. They are thumbing their noses at the request to bring in the Provincial Auditor.

Minister, will you direct the WCB, as is your role as minister responsible, on behalf of Ontario workers who are losing jobs because employers can't afford to continue to fund them, to stop playing peekaboo with the employers' money? Will you either have the internal audits of the WCB released to the employers' council or direct the Provincial Auditor to get in and clean up this mess?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to say that officials from my ministry will be meeting shortly with members of the employers' council to discuss their serious considerations. But in the meantime, I want to say we're not taking over the operation of the board in spite of the arguments of the leader of the third party.

1420

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier. Premier, there is a very dangerous precedent and pattern emerging -- I would suggest to you pattern -- that concerns many of us and indeed many members of the very professional civil service and crown agency employees across the province. That is the appointing of NDP former members, NDP loyalists, not to political jobs, I want to be clear -- I'm not talking about the appointment of Michael Cassidy to Ontario Hydro, as inappropriate as I thought that was. I understand political appointments to agencies, boards, commissions. I understand you want them to be sympathetic and understanding of your philosophy. I understand that. I'm talking about the civil service.

Premier, the question is directed to you because this pattern is emerging. We've seen it just recently with Martin and we saw it again yesterday with Mr Layton. I would like to ask you about another one that has been brought to my attention, that is, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. Mr Karl Morin-Strom, former NDP member, was hired last year as a corporate planner.

To the best of my knowledge there was no competition for this extended civil service position. No one else was interviewed, I am told, for this position. According to the information I've been able to obtain, the provincial crown corporation was ordered to create a position for Mr Morin-Strom.

Premier, I'm asking you, did you or anyone in your office order the ONTC to create a position for the former NDP member for Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm glad to answer that question very directly. The answer is no, of course not. In a sense I'm glad the honourable member raised the issue. In my time as Premier I have met many people in the public service. Some of them were on ministerial staffs in the Liberal Party, some of them were on ministerial staffs in the Conservative Party and some of them are assistant deputy ministers and hold high rank in the public service today.

If you want to do this and say this is the approach you're now going to take, I suggest to you it's a path that is not of any benefit to anyone, and certainly not of any benefit to the Conservative Party with respect to the practices it followed when it was in office. We have established as clearly and as carefully as we can a policy of ensuring merit and competence in terms of public appointments. In terms of appointments that are made under order in council, we've opened up the process in a way that is wider and fairer than ever before in the history of the province.

With respect to public service appointments, they are made by the public service and by others in response to the needs of their own organizations. That's the way it has been and that's the way it is with respect to the Ontario public service, in which this government, together with all governments, has always had the greatest and highest of confidence.

Mr Harris: I don't think we need a lecture on patronage from the Premier. The Premier has proven beyond all doubt that he is very capable of understanding the importance of having people who understand the philosophy and policies being appointed to those positions to carry them out, as do I, and I am not critical of that.

But, Premier, we are talking about a civil service position. Surely you would understand that civil servants and crown agencies have an expectation that a position will be advertised, that there will be a non-partisan method for filling those positions and that in the case of Mr Morin-Strom and the ONTC, the perception is clearly there to all of those involved with the ONTC -- the board members, management, but more important, as I am hearing, the employees of the ONTC -- that you have sent in a partisan loyalist to keep a political watch on the activities of this crown corporation.

Hon Mr Rae: Dr Morin-Strom, who is a mathematics prizewinner from his high school in Sault Ste Marie, a graduate of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has his MA and doctorate, served as a member of this House for a time. Before he served as a member of this House he was a corporate planner in the private sector, as the member will well know, and was an employee of Algoma Steel.

If the member has an accusation to make against an individual, I regret that. But to suggest, for example, that Dr Morin-Strom, apart from the fact that he ran as a New Democratic Party candidate, is somehow not qualified to serve as a member of the public service or as a member of a corporation is a comment, I would say to the honourable member, that is entirely unworthy of the leader of the Conservative Party of this province.

If he wants to go down the list of the people in the public service who came into the public service from ministers' offices under Bill Davis's regime or Frank Miller's regime or who came out of riding associations or anywhere else and are now senior members of the public service, I say to the leader of the third party, I really think he's got to reflect a bit on exactly what he's saying. Is he saying Dr Morin-Strom is not qualified to serve --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- anywhere in the Ontario public service or the federal public service simply because he served as a member of this House for a couple of years? Put it in some perspective, I would ask the honourable member.

Mr Harris: I understand when you're caught with your thumb in the pie that accusing others and misrepresenting what they are saying is the line of defence you've been told to practise. I am asking you to table one shred of evidence that the ONTC was looking for a corporate planner, that that position wasn't created for Mr Morin-Strom, that they weren't ordered to create a position and to hire him, that there was advertising for the position, that it was available to more than one person in this province, ie, available to someone other than Mr Morin-Strom. I'm asking you to table one shred of evidence to that effect.

By way of final supplementary, I am asking you this, Premier. When you campaigned --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: -- you campaigned for whistle blowing in the civil service. In other words, you campaigned to give civil servants the right to speak, come forward and hold the government accountable. Instead what we are getting is the opposite. We are seeing the civil service politicized to the extent that, I tell you, it appears to many disillusioned civil servants and crown agency employees that you are simply appointing NDP hacks in there to spy and find out what's going on.

Hon Mr Rae: To hear from the party which governed this province for 42 long years that --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to hear from them --

The Speaker: Order. Could the Premier take his seat for a moment, please.

1430

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: Anyone who has an inkling of the history of the last while with respect to the relationship between the government and the public service in this province would I think view the question coming from the leader of the third party as one which almost defies description. He knows full well that he can make all the personal attacks on any one single individual that he wants. He can do that, but I will say to the honourable member that any reasonable assessment of the actions of this government in comparison with the actions of any other would say that we have brought people into the public sector and the public service who would never have been considered by other governments. We have established a broad-based policy with respect to appointments, and the people who have been appointed are qualified and of high calibre.

As he himself has said, the Tory party hardly needs to hear a lecture on patronage from the New Democratic Party. The Tory party wrote the book on patronage in the province of Ontario.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Wait a minute. Will the member just wait a minute.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. The member for Halton Centre.

JACK LAYTON

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Premier, to whom I say that it is relatively easy from time to time to be flip about patronage appointments, but I think he will understand, from reaction in this House yesterday and elsewhere through the province, that there is real concern and considerable unease about a bias and a distortion of the process through the hiring of Jack Layton, a highly political and partisan person, to stage-manage the process, to instruct people in how to appear and what things can be said and possibly even to determine who can appear in the public hearings relating to the Public Hospitals Act.

Premier, this is a matter of very widespread concern. I'm asking you if you will personally dispel those concerns and direct the Minister of Health to take Jack Layton off the job so that people will know that the process will be fair, will be balanced, and that your word is on the line in guaranteeing that.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The question relates to the political staff of the Ministry of Health. I'll ask the Minister of Health to answer the question.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I guess I am concerned that the member opposite still has concerns. I think I gave her assurances on these very points yesterday, but let me go through it again.

Mr Layton has been hired on to a position in my political staff. I think it is appropriate for me to be able to hire people of New Democrat political persuasion to my political staff, as other ministers of other governments have done. I think that issue is very straightforward and the criticism that has been levelled at that is a partisan criticism, one that I understand coming from the opposition but that I don't think is warranted in the circumstances.

What I'll say to the member's concerns with respect to the process is that I'd like to make it clear that no member of my political staff will be overseeing or running or determining the process with respect to the public hearings. The hearings that will be held this summer to gather response to the task force report recommendations, that will be held by the parliamentary assistant and members of this Legislature, will be assisted by having a member of my staff facilitate, encouraging people to participate.

I want her to be very well assured that we have been working with the hospital sector and that the Ontario Hospital Association, in holding forums and information sessions for its members, will ensure that the hospitals are out there. We will be listening to all people. We will not be censoring any points of view. We encourage people to come forward. We have not put forward a government position. We are waiting to hear the results of this first round of public consultation. That position will then be tabled in legislation.

Mrs Sullivan: I really regret that the Premier did not respond to that question. It was directed to him, and it is clear that he is not prepared to ensure the lack of bias and an even hand in those public hearings.

We have seen interviews recently where Mr Layton has said, "This is not a job; this is a contract." I want to suggest to you that the Minister of Health found time to appoint Jack Layton to that position, whereas the Ontario hospital appeals tribunal, which is statutorily required to sit as an expert administrative tribunal and must sit in order to guarantee the proper administration of the law regarding public hospitals in Ontario, could not sit since mid-May, until yesterday, because there was no quorum. We want to know why this government could find the time and the money to appoint Jack Layton to stage-manage a public process when it could not take the time to ensure that the proper and legally required functioning of our health care institutions went forward.

I'm asking the minister to respond in place of the Premier. Which comes first, the politics or the law and the protection of people?

Hon Ms Lankin: To the direct question at the end, of course the law and the protection of people. I want the member to be assured that as soon as it was brought to my attention with respect to the need for appointments and reappointments to the Hospital Appeal Board, those orders in council were signed directly by me and have gone through the process and we have resolved the situation that had occurred. I took very swift action on that, as I have in all situations of this nature.

The question was directly about politics or public interest, and that's what's being cast here. I ask the member to think carefully over the course of the number of months that I've been in this portfolio. I think I have a very clear record of having approached this portfolio in a very non-partisan way.

Let me give you some examples. I have appointed and reappointed very many Liberals as members of district health councils and other associations related to the Ministry of Health out there whom the members opposite appointed when they were in government. I looked at their records and where it was warranted I have reappointed them.

Let me also say that I have involved members of the opposition in announcements about initiatives in their ridings on a regular basis, and I have had many thank you's from members opposite about that.

Last, let me say that your party absolutely cannot say anything with respect to this. I have taken a look at the names of the political staff of the former Minister of Health, and they are all throughout the civil service within the Ministry of Health right now. Let me take it further, Mr Speaker, and say that on the computers in our offices --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- we found campaign-related material from the Liberal Party. You have nothing to say on this issue whatsoever.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga South.

1440

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, a property owner announced that he is suing her government for the sum of $20 million that he has lost due to the retroactivity of Bill 4 regarding phased-in rent increases for necessary repairs. Today, a former owner of a small building told the Queen's Park media that he had lost his life savings because of Bill 4's retroactivity. This morning, in an interview on CBC's Metro Morning with Joe Coté, this minister said, referring to the rent review backlog, that the cases will be dealt with under the old law rather than Bill 121 because she "can't introduce retroactive legislation."

My question is: If you now believe that you cannot introduce retroactive legislation, will you repeal the retroactive legislation in Bill 4?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): When I referred in the interview this morning to the question of retroactive legislation, I was speaking of cases which came forward under Bill 51, before Bill 4 came into effect, and which have to be heard under the legislation that existed at that time. Bill 4 was not retroactive as it related to this government and its undertakings. Bill 4 was brought into effect and it affected cases that began in October 1990. There was nothing retroactive about Bill 4.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorely tempted to use an unparliamentary word to describe this minister's two-faced response to the people who have lost thousands and millions of dollars in this province because of the retroactivity of Bill 4.

Now that Bill 121 is about to become law, the minister can reveal her socialist government's hidden agenda. As the Premier said when he was Leader of the Opposition: "You make it less profitable for people to own rental property. I would bring in a very rigid, tough rent system of rent review....There will be a huge squawk...and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'"

My question to this minister is, will you admit that your government is trying to force rental property owners out of business so that their properties can be purchased at fire-sale prices for government-funded non-profit housing?

Hon Ms Gigantes: This government has no hidden agenda. In fact, nothing this government does is hidden. Even things we'd like to chat to ourselves about end up on the front page of the newspaper.

We have made it very clear what our intention is in Bill 121. It is legislation which is designed to protect the right of tenants in Ontario to have only reasonable rent increases, and at the same time provide enough flexibility so that landlords who need additional moneys for particular kinds of repairs which are outside the regular maintenance needs of apartment buildings can apply for legitimate repair needs that affect the structure and soundness of a building, that affect the health and safety of the occupants, that allow access to the apartment building for people who have disabilities and also that provide for conservation of energy and water.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Culture and Communications has a response to a question asked earlier.

TVONTARIO

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): With respect to the TVOntario award competition and the grand prize of $50,000, I would like to provide further details.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To which member?

Hon Mrs Haslam: To the member for Mississauga South in her question on Monday, May 25.

The TVOntario awards were established, as she has mentioned, in 1990. They are intended to be awarded every other year. The grand prize winner will receive $50,000 and each of the six finalists will be receiving $5,000. The awards ensure a stronger presence and an increased recognition for TVO in international markets. For TVO to sell its programming, it must be known and it must be associated with excellence and quality educational programming. The awards and the promotional activities associated with the awards contribute significantly to that kind of recognition for TVO product.

The main purpose of the awards is to support and promote TVO's commercial and business operations and is within its mandate.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I guess the minister is going to have to do a better job, because I don't know where in the TVO mandate it talks about selling its programming. My understanding of the mandate for TVO is that it's an educational service to the people of this province, the same people who are solicited for their public support through subscriptions and a funding of $80 million of taxpayers' money.

Madam Minister, we do not support the use of this money to give prizes around the world in the same industry. It is not the mandate of TVOntario and I ask you again to review a policy that allows $80,000 of public money to be given in prizes.

Hon Mrs Haslam: It does support and promote the commercial and business operations and is consistent with TVO's mandate. TVO sells its programs to 80 countries worldwide. At a time when government sources of funding are constrained, it is especially important, I feel, that TVO make every effort to increase non-governmental revenue. That is what these awards will do. The awards represent a sound business investment and a strategic investment in Ontario's educational broadcasting.

A very important part of the awards is that each of the winning programs will be broadcast on TVO and on La Chaîne. TVO does not pay for the production cost of the program. For award-winning programs of this calibre, TVO normally pays $5,000 to $9,000, so this is an excellent return on TVO's investment.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It's apparent that part of the disentanglement discussions involve the transfer of water and sewer responsibilities to municipalities. In fact, some media reports go as far as saying this is something you have pretty much decided will take place. By doing this, Minister, it's my position and our position that you as Minister of the Environment are in fact abdicating your responsibility to provide a safe and clean supply of water to the people of Ontario.

In your response to my question yesterday you said, "the issue of the protection of the waters of the province...is certainly a concern." You went on to say further, "I...have been taking...definite action."

Indeed you have been taking action, Madam Minister. In this government's budget most recently released and read in this place, the grants to municipalities for water and sewer projects have been chopped by $56 million. Why did you decrease the sewer and water allocations in this budget?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): As I'm sure the member is aware, in the announcement of the budget the Treasurer talked about the whole issue of capital financing and how we can do capital financing in a much more strategic manner than has been done in the past. Many of my colleagues on this side, and I suspect my colleagues on the other side, have often come to ministers of the Environment or other ministers with requests for a better coordination and overall look at capital spending. That is precisely the kind of strategy and approach this government is following.

In response to the funding, I want to say to the member that he has to look at the funding on water and services from a range of ministers. I didn't have the figure at my fingertips yesterday. I'm very glad to be able to tell him that in 1990-91 the budget for water management activities by the ministries of Agriculture and Food, Environment, Municipal Affairs, Natural Resources and Northern Development was in excess of $650 million. That is not a cutback in a commitment to water management in this province.

1450

Mr McClelland: The fact of the matter is, Minister, that is not specifically water and sewer. That is a range of programs. At the end of the day you are abdicating your responsibility as Minister of the Environment to deal with that fundamental issue.

I remind you of what you said in opposition. You will be well aware that in the 1990 budget the former government showed some leadership in creating the water and sewer corporation to address the need to expand and upgrade much of the existing infrastructure, which, as you know, is in critical condition. The reality is that municipalities and upper-tier governments across this province are not in a position to handle it adequately. You said at that time, Minister, "What we need is more capital to replace our infrastructure." We agree with that.

The recent budget promised more support for infrastructure renewal. The water and sewer main corporation was set up two years ago, and nothing has happened there. Given these facts, Minister, why don't you move ahead now with the water and sewer corporation? Do something with it and get your ministry back on track with the kind of funding municipalities and other programs in your ministry need.

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know what the member thinks the sewer and water corporation as announced by Treasurer Nixon in his budget would have done, but certainly as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I and the Treasurer have looked at the policy development work, the consultation, the development of a mandate and the authority that would've been given to that proposal, we have found absolutely nothing in the way of preparation, consultation or policy development done by that government with respect to the sewer and water corporation, so I'm surprised that the member sees it as a panacea to all of the problems of municipalities.

Municipalities have very real infrastructure problems. I know that. We all know that. But just setting up a corporation to deal with the development industry and to somehow facilitate urban sprawl across the agricultural land of this province, which was what was envisaged by the Treasurer of your government, is not the solution to the infrastructure problems of this province.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, we know the unemployment rate for youths aged 15 to 24 is 18.7%. Last week there were some discussions in the House with regard to the expectation that youth summer employment will be a significant challenge for all of us.

Yesterday we were made very much aware of some youth fighting and attacks at the Toronto Islands, and this morning we heard Detective Sergeant Stephen Duggan, from the Metropolitan Toronto Police, say that usually at this time of year these kinds of things can happen but his great concern and disappointment is that, with more youth unemployment, this could happen during the summer because they don't have the normal jobs they would be going to, right across Ontario, not just here in Toronto.

I have to say, Mr Minister, that last week the Premier said he will release a report that will deal with the issue of summer employment before the summer begins. School's out in two weeks. My question to the minister is, when are you going to release this report that can ensure that at least more students will have summer jobs?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the Premier indicated in an answer to a question earlier today that his parliamentary assistant, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, is presenting a report to cabinet tomorrow on some of the work she has been doing and that we expect there will be some announcements that will come as a result of the work she has been doing very soon.

Mrs Cunningham: In spite of that response, across southwest Ontario throughout probably this past winter and certainly within the last 18 months, school boards have been working with teachers, administrators and the police to address the issue of violence in the schools and communities. In response to the increased violence in our schools, at least in our knowledge since you've been in government, probably in November 1991, your government stated that the safe school task force has been established and the community education and outreach branch has been established. They're supposed to be developing cooperative approaches to deal with this significant problem. I'm talking about violence in our communities stemming from schools.

This is an ongoing thing, and we now have the member for St Andrew-St Patrick coming forth with a report. Can you please advise this Legislature what these two groups have been doing? What is the status of these two groups, and will their reports and their ongoing studies and some of their successes be taken into consideration when we get the report on youth employment next week, I hope?

Hon Mr Silipo: I know some of those same issues have been looked at as part of the work that has been going on through the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. Clearly the issue the member raises is one to which there are no quick solutions, as I'm sure she will be the first to understand and agree, but I think the question of youth employment is one answer and I think we are indicating not only our support for that direction but in fact are suggesting that we will be able to do some concrete things in that.

The issue of the safe school task force and the other group that was mentioned is one we will continue to look at. I'd be happy to provide more details to the member opposite, and to any other member who wishes, of the work coming out of that.

We also are looking at a number of other things with respect to anti-racism -- and I will have more to say about that in the House very shortly -- because we think that all these things are obviously related and connected with respect to some of the problems we're seeing reflected in some of the activities some of our young people are involved in these days.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Madam Minister, I understand that last Friday, May 29, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the three big auto makers -- Chrysler, Ford and General Motors -- the federal government and our own provincial government.

Madam Minister, the riding I represent is one of the areas where the largest numbers of automobiles in all of Canada are made -- there and of course in the riding of my colleague the member for Oshawa. These are important issues for my area, Madam Minister, and I want to know about the program. Are we talking about a voluntary program preventing pollution, and why was this selected?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm glad to be able to tell the member and the other members of the House that the Big Three auto makers have voluntarily agreed to a pollution prevention program. There has been some concern -- and the member has discussed it with me -- as to what that means in terms of existing legislation and enforcement of that legislation. I'd like to make it very clear that the signing of this memorandum of understanding does not in any way alter the responsibilities of my ministry for enforcement of existing legislation, control orders or certificates of approval, nor does it alter the obligation or the commitment of the industry to abide by those laws.

But what the industry has done is go beyond existing legislation and voluntarily agree with both Environment Canada and ourselves to enter into a memorandum of understanding. This commits them to pollution prevention, to going back into their companies, to looking at the toxics they use, to looking at how they can reduce those. That is entirely consistent with the commitment of this government to pollution prevention. I think the industry deserves to be commended.

Mr White: I think that speaks to an essential issue. Many people in my area are concerned about the pollution, about the auto industry and its future, and I am wondering if the minister could speak further to the issue of why we are choosing to go a voluntary route rather than the mandatory route many people would say is more typical.

Hon Mrs Grier: The concept of pollution prevention is not a new one to environmentalists. I think it's new to governments and I think this government is the first to have made a commitment to build that into existing programs, such as the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, toxics use reduction and a number of others.

What we are doing is encouraging stakeholders to take full responsibility for their actions and to reduce their use, generation and release of toxic substances. How to do that, the kind of monitoring involved in getting us to the point of knowing how much is emitted and how much has to be reduced is going to take a great deal of work. The automobile industry has agreed voluntarily to do some, I think, ground-breaking work on it that will be a very useful example for us to follow in discussing with other sectors and in learning more about how this kind of program will in fact work.

LEGAL AID

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. According to numerous reports, the NDP government is on the verge of changing the legal aid system by setting up clinics and eliminating the freedom to choose one's own lawyer.

Over 70% of legal aid family law clients are women. Any decision affecting family law legal aid will impact mostly on women and their dependent children, a group which is often financially vulnerable, abused and powerless. In fact, just yesterday a report was released showing that women are killed in large numbers by their estranged male partners. Many family legal aid clients are assaulted women who need legal representation to protect themselves and their children but can't afford to pay a lawyer.

Will the minister responsible for women's issues assure this House that she has seen impact studies proving that the Attorney General's plan has not and will not prejudice the interests of these women? Second, will she assure us that she has advocated strongly at the cabinet table against the erosion of the family law legal aid system?

1500

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The Attorney General is responsible for legal aid clinics and has not made an announcement on this. I can assure the member that his reputation and mine as strong advocates on behalf of women tells her the answer to her question, that in fact we would not take any action we thought impacted negatively upon the rights of women in this province.

Ms Poole: I gather we are to take on faith, as there appear to be no impact studies, that the minister responsible for women's issues and the Attorney General will act on behalf of women in this province, but I do not have those assurances.

A distinguished group such as the Ontario Family Court Judges Association, family law lawyers across the province and assaulted women's shelters have all combined forces to say they feel that a move towards clinics for family law legal aid would end up discriminating against women by eliminating their right to choose. A man often has resources to hire a lawyer privately, but soon his female partner will have to turn to government-run family law clinics where a lawyer will be assigned on a first come, first served basis regardless of skill or area of specialization.

This is the government that advocates freedom of choice for all, yet wants to cut costs by taking away women's right to choose.

What steps will this minister take to ensure that the Attorney General considers other means of controlling costs within his ministry and does not deal with its economic difficulty on the backs of those who can least afford it: the women and children of this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It becomes increasingly difficult every day for ministers in this government to answer speculative questions on the part of the opposition. There has been no announcement about any plans to change the legal aid plan and I'm not prepared to try and answer questions that are based on mere speculation.

We are indeed concerned about enhancing the legal aid rights of women, as we have shown in many of the actions we've taken in terms of parental support and so on. I would advise the member that of course we are strongly advocating only avenues that we believe will enhance the access of battered women to legal services.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING SPENDING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I heard the government House leader suggest yesterday that we should hurry through the debate on Bill 121 because they had a celebration planned at the Ministry of Housing. My question to the minister is this: Did the dipperfest take place even though passage of Bill 121 didn't go through, and what was the cost to the taxpayer?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We have not been able to find a time that fits my schedule and that of the busy previous Minister of Housing, our House leader, but we will be sure to invite members of the committee to join us and perhaps have a glass of Coke or ginger ale or something in our office as soon as the legislation is passed. I don't think we'll find the time, certainly in my schedule, for the next two months. When we invite the member to join us, because he was a member of the committee, we'll be glad to accept contributions for his soft drink.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

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

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

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

That's been signed by individuals of H & R Cardinal Contracting Inc, Fedmet Inc, Sudbury Construction Association, Bravo Cement Contracting (Toronto) Ltd and Trojan Technologies Inc. I've signed my signature to these petitions.

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION SITE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the accident investigation site located at the Avenue Road and Highway 401 interchange is poorly located in a residential area, causing undue hazard and concern to local residents, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to remove the accident inspection site from within the borders of the Avenue Road and Highway 401 residential area."

The petition is signed by 60 residents and I'm pleased to affix my signature.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel that it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on the resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting with the status of residents with long-term leases and where they fall under rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report for land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

I affix my name to this.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned students and members of the Hastings-Prince Edward County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the government and society are concerned about promoting healthy lifestyles; and

"Whereas recent studies have found that smoking is a major cause of many illnesses and deaths of both smokers and non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke; and

"Whereas it is important to increase community awareness on this health issue;

"Therefore, we petition the Legislature, following World No-Tobacco Day, for a smoke-free planet for the benefit of our generation and all future generations."

I enclose all these signatures which have been submitted to me.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This is 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."

That's signed by 121 people, and I've affixed my name to it.

1510

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by 554 residents of Scarborough and the surrounding district. I'd like to acknowledge the role of Harold Adams, who is a separate school trustee in the area, who's present in the gallery this afternoon.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12 OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and 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 have appended my name to this.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition as follows:

"Whereas as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ we feel that the current proposed labour law would violate a Christian's conscience as based on scripture; and

"Whereas the proposed labour reform violates the current Constitution of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it contains no provision for persons to exercise their freedom as dictated by their conscience in religion;

"We therefore request that the law should state (a) that union membership be entirely voluntary and based on religious conscience and an employee may be hired but exempted from belonging to a union and/or retain his place of employment if his workplace becomes certified; (b) that based on religious conscience an employee may be exempt from paying union dues; (c) that there be no right of entry on private property by union representatives; and (d) that there be no preference for unions when awarding contracts and that they be outlawed from the boycotting of businesses or construction sites."

That is signed by two and a half dozen constituents and by me.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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." That is signed by over 300 constituents, and I affix my signature.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp, the OWMC, is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator and landfill site in the heart of Ontario's fruit land of Niagara;

"Whereas the toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the Ontario Waste Management Corp."

Affixed to this petition are 228 signatures of constituents across Ontario. I also affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition 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; and

"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;

"Therefore, we petition the Legislature 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."

Signed by 15 residents and signed by myself.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by approximately 46 individuals, and I've affixed my name to the petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr O'Connor: I have a petition here signed by 13 constituents.

"We, the residents of land-leased communities, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion or other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on the resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting with the status of residents with long-term leases and where they fall under rent review legislation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report for land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

I affix my name, Mr Speaker.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have here 339 names on a petition from Port Elgin, Owen Sound, Petrolia, St Catharines and Unionville. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition signed by people from all across Markham, Unionville, Thornhill and Milliken Mills.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a second petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 have signed this petition with the names of people from Stouffville, Markham, Nepean, Ashton and Grey who have also signed this petition.

1520

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA JOURNÉE AGNES-MACPHAIL

Mr Malkowski moved first reading of Bill 35, An Act proclaiming Agnes Macphail Day / Loi proclamant la journée Agnes-Macphail.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): The bill would designate March 24 as Agnes Macphail Day. It would require the government of Ontario to name a public building in her honour.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Education Act respecting School Bus Monitors / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les moniteurs d'autobus scolaires.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The bill is to require every school bus carrying elementary school children to have a monitor on board to ensure the children get on and off the bus and cross the street safely. The bill amends (a) the Highway Traffic Act to set out the obligations of school bus drivers, monitors and other motorists, and (b) the Education Act to require school boards to appoint a monitor for each bus that is used to transport its elementary school students.

SPECIAL EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENFANCE EN DIFFICULTÉ

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts with respect to Special Education / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'enfance en difficulté.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'm particularly pleased to introduce this bill during National Access Awareness Week. This bill amends the Education Act and related statutes in areas dealing with education programs and services for exceptional pupils. First, the bill revokes the term "trainable retarded pupil" and provisions in current statutes dealing with "trainable retarded pupils." Second, it authorizes local area public school boards in Metropolitan Toronto to assume responsibility no later than January 1, 1995, for the education of exceptional pupils with developmental handicaps. Third, it revokes the provisions dealing with hard-to-serve pupils. I invite all members to give their support to this legislation.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for 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 Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Mississauga West had the floor.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In the absence of the member for Mississauga West, I will be pleased to carry on the debate for the Liberal caucus on third reading of Bill 121.

It's been a long, arduous process over the last year and a half. In fact, it's been one year, six months and I think five days. I don't think I have the number of hours, but you can tell it's been a long time since we first started rent legislation in this Legislature: November 1990. This legislation has outlasted two ministers of Housing, two Conservative critics, and I guess I'm the last vestige of the original members who were involved in Bill 4.

As we looked at rent legislation over the last year and a half, I thought about what we needed in rent legislation, what we needed to do in order to reach this nirvana of having rent legislation that suited the landlords, the tenants and the aging housing stock of this province. I came up with six goals which I believe are necessary for any rent legislation:

The first is rent stability for tenants. That was the original precept of rent legislation when it was brought in in 1975, and I believe it holds true today that this is a very important criterion.

Second, any rent legislation has to have as one of its priorities preserving our aging housing stock.

Third, rent policy should not be so complex that tenants, landlords and people working in the housing industry cannot understand it. It should not be confusing and it should not be riddled with bureaucracy.

The fourth precept is that landlords should be allowed a reasonable return on investment. I firmly believe the private sector has a major place and a major job in the housing sector, and that should continue.

The fifth thing is that any rent legislation should be balanced. It should be taking into account the need for tenant protection, the needs of our housing stock, to make sure it's preserved, and also the need of landlords to maintain their stock and to make a reasonable return.

The final and perhaps one of the most important goals of any rent legislation is that it should be fair and it should be democratic.

I'd like to take a look at Bill 121 and see whether it measures up to these somewhat lofty goals.

First of all, let's take a look at what form the legislation was in when it was introduced for second reading. That was almost a year ago this month. At that time, the Liberal caucus had to make a decision whether to support this rent legislation. Its form at that time was that it would allow one rent increase per year, as the previous Bill 51 did; it had provisions for notice of rent increases, as Bill 51 did; it had a provision for maintaining our housing stock, as Bill 51 did, but this took a very different form.

Under the legislation formulated last June, the concept was that there would be two guidelines, depending on the size of the building. So small buildings under six units would have one guideline and large buildings over six units -- some of us may differ on that particular definition of large buildings -- would have a different guideline.

1530

The third precept of this legislation when it was introduced a year ago was that it would have a cap, 3% above the guideline. The legislation did not provide any costs-no-longer-borne provision, which tenants had been asking for and which I, as Liberal critic for Housing, had asked for in Bill 4. For those members who aren't aware, costs no longer borne is quite a simple concept, although a little bit more difficult to implement. The precept of costs no longer borne is that when a tenant has had to have a rent increase because of a capital repair or a capital improvement in the building, once that repair or major item is paid off then the tenant should have a corresponding reduction in the rent. It seems to make a lot of sense, right, Mr Speaker? The original legislation did not have this type of mechanism.

Another precept of the legislation a year ago was that there was no appeals board. This was something that was certainly roundly criticized at the time. The fourth precept was that there would not be a standards board but instead matters of compliance with property standards and maintenance would be brought into the rent review system.

At that time the Liberal caucus had to make a decision whether to support this legislation. We did, and I recommended to my caucus that we do so, for two reasons. The first was that, notwithstanding the fact it was called the Rent Control Act, this was still a rent review process with some flexibility built into the system. The second reason was that for the first time the NDP government admitted the promise it made in the Agenda for People was unworkable and that there was a necessity for cost pass-throughs in the way of rent increases for necessary repairs. That was a very major concession by the NDP government. I criticized them not for changing their promise but for making that promise to begin with.

Based on that, we voted for the legislation and said that a number of things would have to happen in order for us to support it on third reading. One of the things we mentioned was the fact that there must be an appeal board, that there must be a mechanism, particularly for tenants and small landlords who cannot afford to go to the Divisional Court to appeal decisions of rent officers that are wrong. There was no independent, arm's-length appeal board, and we made it clear this would be one of our priority amendments.

A second priority amendment was reinstatement and in fact strengthening of the standards board. The Liberal caucus felt then and the Liberal caucus feels now that the standards board, which was composed equally of tenant and landlord representatives, was one of the best things in Bill 51. The problem with the standards board was that it had to be linked to the rent review process in order to get final decisions about rent reductions. What we called for was reinstating this board and in fact giving it more jurisdiction so that it would not have to be involved with rent review.

Another thing we said as a Liberal caucus at the time of second reading was that we wanted this legislation to be changed and to be brought into a simpler form. It was extremely complicated legislation. I found that somewhat ironic actually, given the fact that when in opposition the NDP was extremely critical of Bill 51 for its complexity, but what resulted was Bill 121, which had all of one clause fewer than Bill 51. The terminology was just as complicated and, in fact, the bureaucracy had been increased.

Those were all things that we felt were wrong with the bill in its form on second reading and we pledged to bring in amendments to try to rectify this process.

When we went to committee, the government had made some movement. First of all, they took a very complex system where you had different guideline increases for small buildings and for big buildings and they changed that into one guideline, the same as it was in Bill 51; one guideline for all buildings. We are glad, after many arguments by all parties that having it based on the size of the building didn't make any sense, that finally the government listened. If they had made it on the basis of old and new buildings, while it would've still been complex, at least it would've made sense. What the government had proposed on second reading didn't. That was a gratifying change when the government came forward in the standing committee on general government.

The other thing the government changed which I very fully supported was that it finally included, after many attempts by our caucus to make it see reason, a costs-no-longer-borne provision. It was quite amusing actually, because in August 1991 the government was still saying: "We can't bring it in. It's too complicated. We don't know how to figure it out. We don't know how to take it off. We don't know how to add it on. We don't know how to deal with this." I suggested that maybe the computerized age should catch up with the Ministry of Housing so that it could deal with it. At the time I didn't seem to sense a lot of sympathy, but something happened and when it got to committee there was a government amendment which brought in costs no longer borne.

There were positive things. However, there was still no right of automatic hearing, still no appeals board, still no standards board. The legislation was still incredibly complex and difficult to understand. The Liberal caucus brought forward 65 amendments in committee. The government itself had over 100 amendments to a bill that had only 130 clauses. I think you can tell by this how complex and convoluted this legislation is. To date we have had, I believe, in the order of 250 amendments by three caucuses to a bill that started out with 130 clauses.

How does the minister expect any tenants, any small landlords, any Housing critics for that matter, to be able to comprehend this very complex legislation? I did my level best. I must say in defence of the government that it did accept a number of the Liberal amendments. With one exception, they were all what I'd categorize as minor amendments.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. We started out with our Liberal amendments being very balanced, trying to create this balance in the rent legislation with a package tenants felt was necessary and a package landlords felt was necessary. The funny thing was that our tenant amendments got passed through and our landlord package got rejected wholesale. The minister may say, although she won't have an opportunity today, "Yes, this is good because we protect tenants," but what has happened is that in its rejection of some of these very basic components the minister and the ministry have not protected tenants.

If our aging housing stock is not preserved and protected, this will not benefit tenants because tenants first of all want a decent, comfortable place in which to live. These are their homes we're talking about. I think this legislation with its provisions for maintenance, by taking it away from the standards board which was a very balanced entity, by putting it into rent review with incredibly stringent qualifications, has done a disservice to the tenants and the buildings, because instead of using a carrot and stick approach, where there is some incentive, it has used a stick and stick approach.

A number of the provisions they've put in are simply unreasonable. I fear there will be a backlash. I've already heard from landlords that there will be a backlash and our buildings will not be as well maintained as before. There is no doubt that we have a number of landlords and a number of buildings in this province which are not role models for anybody, which are particularly poorly maintained, where the landlord has been insensitive and abusive. But I maintain that this is not the norm, that the majority of our buildings are quite well maintained, particularly considering that the majority of our housing stock is now over 20 years old.

1540

What this legislation does is penalize the good landlords, the ones who are honestly trying to do a very difficult job in keeping that aging housing stock maintained. But the ministry has rejected our efforts to reinstate the standards board, to strengthen the standards board and to put standards and compliance of standards under that jurisdiction.

We now come to third reading and we now know what the bill looks like in its final form. The appeals board: The amendment introduced by the Liberal caucus has been rejected. The amendment to reinstate and strengthen the standards board has been rejected. The legislation is even more complex and more unwieldy than it first started out to be. Mr Speaker, if you can believe this, notwithstanding that they've removed the appeals board and the standards board, the legislation is going to be more costly to administer and it is going to be more bureaucratic.

They rejected the Liberals' green amendment and they even rejected our modified amendments which we thought as a bare minimum -- amendments that were favoured by the Ministry of Energy -- would actually be considered. They weren't.

We had an amendment where we would allow tenants and landlords to equalize rents. That meant that if there were two identical apartments in a building, one being charged $700 rent, the other being charged $500 rent, they would equalize so that both tenants would pay $600. They're getting the same service and they're getting the same unit; they should pay the same rent. Many tenants would have liked that restored, but instead the government said no because this would legalize illegal units, which is utter nonsense, because those units are no more illegal and those rents no more illegal today with this amendment than without. Those rents are still being charged. The ministry doesn't even know where these rents are. That does not make any sense.

We tried to define inadequate maintenance, to put some criteria to it in the legislation so that there would be a guidepost for tenants and for landlords so they knew what they were facing before they went to rent control, or rent review, as I prefer to call it.

When I look at the original six goals I outlined to you a little earlier, Mr Speaker, yes, I will grant that the government has created rent stability; the cap has done this. But the second point, whether they have preserved our aging housing stock, is still in debate. Many sources say what they have done is the worst thing that could have happened to our housing stock.

The third thing, about the rent policy being complex: I've already outlined to this House how this is one of the most complex pieces of legislation I have seen in my days as a legislator. The sad part of it is that somebody said to me the other day, "You understand this legislation better than any other member in the Legislature," which included the minister. I said, "I find that a very sad state of affairs because there are many parts of this legislation I still am grappling with."

Fourth, landlords should be allowed a reasonable return on investment: The dirty P-word, "profit," was taken out of the guideline because the minister said there should not be profit in rental housing. I think a lot of landlords would say there's no reasonable return.

Fifth, is it balanced? It speaks for itself. It is not balanced. But ironically, in an effort to protect tenants, with some of the decisions they have made we will indeed have the opposite occur.

Finally, is it fair and democratic? I submit to you, Mr Speaker, it is not. How can it be democratic when it takes away the appeal board, when there is no independent arm's-length mechanism to revisit ministry decisions? This is something landlords and tenants are definitely unanimous on, the need for an appeal board. Yet it has been rejected.

When all is said and done, I don't feel this legislation meets my test for good rent legislation. The minister tried to tell us the other day, and almost got laughed out of the House, how it resembled their 1990 campaign promise. In fact these were her words. The minister said:

"As I listened to her read from that document again, and considering the principles that are embodied in this legislation, I thought again how very close this legislation is to what we have talked about in the Agenda for People."

We have two very, very strong tenant advocates in the gallery today. We have Elinor Mahoney, from the Tenant Advocacy Group. We have Mary-Jo Donovan, president of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations.

[Applause]

Ms Poole: I'm glad to see members acknowledging their presence.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Don't forget Deborah Wandell.

Ms Poole: Deborah apparently is up there somewhere, but I can't see her. But if you ask them if this legislation monitors or resembles their campaign promise, they would say a resounding no.

This is their campaign promise, "One increase a year based on inflation." There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs. "It's simple, it's fair and it avoids the bureaucracy which has frustrated both tenants and small landlords." Give me a break, Mr Speaker. I hope that's not unparliamentary, but I just can't believe the minister would think this resembled what they brought in.

She said, "There's one increase a year." There was one increase per year under Bill 51. She said, "It's tied to inflation because the guideline is." This says "based on inflation." Inflation this year is 2%. This year under the minister's proposal landlords can claim up to 9% and tenants would face up to 9% rent increase. How does this bear any resemblance to what we have in Bill 121?

They say, "It's simple, it's fair and it avoids the bureaucracy." I can tell you, Mr Speaker, Bill 121 is the epitome of bureaucracy, the epitome of complexity. It does not resemble their promise, and I for one do not think they should've made their promise. They made it because they were either opportunistic or they didn't understand the housing market. In either case, they shouldn't have made it.

What we have today is legislation which I do not believe bodes well for the tenants, for the landlords and for the aging housing stock of this province. I would've liked to be able to stand, as Housing critic for the Liberal caucus, and support this legislation on third reading. I am unable to do so and I would urge all my colleagues to follow suit.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The time allowed for debate of third reading of Bill 121 has now expired.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I move third reading of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Gigantes has moved third reading of Bill 121.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe there has been an agreement among the House leaders that we would defer the vote on this until 5:45 pm this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to defer? Agreed?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, there has to be some indication that a division is about to take place.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Let us divide now, and if it were to pass, then the honourable minister would not have to arrange for what we've already agreed on. I have a feeling that with all this unanimity around here, there's a chance something might happen, but it's not going to be what she thinks.

1550

The Acting Speaker: Ms Gigantes have moved third reading of Bill 121. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If I could repeat, I believe there is an understanding among the House leaders that we would defer this vote until 5:45.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent that the vote be deferred till 5:45 today? Agreed.

Vote deferred.

House in committee of the whole.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Consideration of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy / Loi modifiant certaines lois concernant l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Chair, I wonder if I could have permission to move to the front and have staff come in for this.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Please proceed. I would like to remind members that we were dealing with Bill 136 in committee of the whole, a government amendment to subsection 2(1) moved by Mr Sutherland, which reads as follows: "I move that section 40.1 of the --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Dispense.

The Second Deputy Chair: Dispensed. Debate, discussion, the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm concerned about what we're having to do. Bill 136 is certainly not going to be one of the bills that ties -- the Liberals aren't going to use the opportunity, I don't think, to keep the House sitting for an extended length of time on Bill 136, and certainly I have no such intention.

But I am concerned with the bill and, in particular, with the whole Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act itself. As one looks at all the government we have in this country, we have the federal government with its control of information, the province with its own control of information and now the municipal and local governments all getting into the act. Everybody is putting walls around information, making it next to impossible for laypeople to obtain information they might need to use in the course of doing their own jobs. In fact, the bottom line to me is that we've got so much government in this country that we have enough to run a population of 130 million rather than the something less than 30 million we've got.

We end up coming through with legislation such as this, which to those who would really understand what it's all about as it applies to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act -- you're dealing with privileged information in a specialized way, and then all the extra regulations by which this government will make sure that it interfaces correctly and properly with the federal government, all of which is necessary and all of which becomes a dreadful pain to the public at large. All we're doing in this legislation is that the longer we sit we come out with more regulations and more controls, all of which cause people to hire lawyers to interpret the laws that we've built and created.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): It's cleaning it up, Don.

Mr Cousens: Oh, cleaning it up. You Dippers haven't cleaned anything up since you came to power on September 6.

The Second Deputy Chair: I would like the honourable member to address the Chair, please.

Mr Cousens: If they're going to interrupt, they're going to get a little lecture of another kind, Mr Chairman. When they come along and say they're cleaning things up, there's going to be a massive cleanup for us in the next election, after the next 1,250 days, when the New Democrats go to their exile.

That exile can't come too soon for me because they have done nothing to inspire confidence in any thinking Ontarians since October 1 when their cabinet was sworn in. Since then it's gone down, and a notch downwards today with the spectacle of the Premier pontificating about his appointment process of a Sault Ste Marie native NDPer to a position. Along with all the other NDPers they're putting into high offices, it's just further proof that the New Democrats have lost control of the Agenda for People they were so proud of.

The Second Deputy Chair: Bill 136 refers to an act relating to freedom of information and protection of privacy.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, that wouldn't have happened had it not been for those unkind interjections from some of the New Democratic backbenchers who seldom speak to the House on any other occasion except when I or some of the members of this side happen to have something to say.

Even if it isn't as bright and brilliant as some of the other spokespeople, I at least have the privilege and pleasure of putting on the record a few concerns I have with regard to the process, and the process to me is one of those things where I would be the happiest person to turn in my money that I make as an MPP if we could spend less time in this House and have fewer laws so that the people of Ontario could get used to all the ones that have been made over the last 125 years.

When we celebrate Confederation this summer, are we going to be celebrating that we've got more controls around the protection of privacy act? There shouldn't be that much that is private. If you're talking about an open government, which the New Democrats have always said they would have -- and God forbid if we ever give them another chance like the one they've just squandered away. I mean, we're almost halfway through this terrible period of Ontario's history in which the New Democrats have come along and caused us such dismay and gets guys like me out of my chair and into an act.

I tell you, Mr Speaker, this act doesn't change too much. It's just indicative of the priorities of this government. If this government could come along and say, "Okay, we've got a deal," if this House were working in such a way that what is important could be worked out, where we'd sit around and develop a consensus on a number of the key issues that would be important to all parties, such as would have happened in a minority government if the 38% of the population on September 6 had not swung such a high-powered group of New Democrats into power, then we wouldn't be in a position where you end up having more and more regulations and controls being brought in by this group.

1600

Isn't it funny -- and I think this is really why I wanted to offer a few words today on this bill -- that when the New Democrats were in opposition they had something to say on everything, they were going to make such great changes, and since they've come to power we see them falling in line perfectly, adding to the confusion of the common layperson on just exactly what government's all about. If you really wanted to do something with this whole Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you could do something that would make it easier for people to get information they want and that is available under the freedom of information act.

On another aspect of this bill, just recently, as critic for Environment, I was concerned with the need to understand certain aspects of the ministry to do with Harbourfront recycling, so I sent in a request to the ministry. They weren't about to respond to me, not as a member of the Legislature, no way. They didn't have to do it, but I had the right to proceed to get that information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So I submitted my request and in time got the letter back from them indicating, "Yes, we could get that information for you." I wasn't sure how good the information would be; I had no way of assessing it beforehand. But they came back and said, "For $288 we'll get you the information you want." By the way, I don't get any money for that as an MPP, within my funds. I had to write a personal cheque for $288 in order to obtain the necessary documents.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You've got it.

Mr Cousens: I might have the dollars, but I'll tell you, there are other things I'd rather spend them on than what I ended up getting. If freedom of information means you pick up a pile of junk, which is what I got -- what I got wasn't worth 50 cents.

But with this government in place, the New Democrats who pushed strenuously for more freedom of information, now that you're in power why don't you deal with some of the other issues under the freedom of information act? Why don't you use some of those inventive suggestions you were so good at when you were in opposition? Now that you're in power and you have an opportunity to do something about it, you do sweet nothing.

Chairman of Management Board is sitting up at the front bench with two assistants to assist him through this very strenuous bill. That's fine, and we've always had that; I've seen that since I came down here in 1981. They come along and they feel very important. I'll tell you, you'd feel a lot better if you came up with some good ideas on how to improve this system instead of just tripping more and more people up.

Yes, we've got to have this bill. Yes, I will end up supporting the bill.

Mr Hayes: Sit down, then.

Mr Cousens: That's it, they want me to sit down. I have the pleasure of making them suffer a little here and letting them know that I'm sick of the lack of priorities of this government. You don't have any priorities when it comes to the small person who's out there and ends up having more and more regulations and more and more laws. If you think we have an act that works in this province, it doesn't. The freedom of information act is not what people think it is. It is not working.

Here we are dealing with a few little things so that this province can deal with another level of government, the federal government, and make it work a little better. I hope it does work better. The issues happen to have importance. It deals with hazardous waste, and we should know what's going on, but it's like the CIA with all the controls we have in this government. So much is secret, so much is kept under wraps. I would rather see a far more open government, a more open process and more accessible data to people who are interested.

Maybe one of the things the minister could look at doing is computerizing far more. You've spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, on computers. More and more of these data should be available on CRTs and on terminals so that people can access them far more freely than exists right now.

So we're dealing with this most important bill today. If you'd brought forward some Sunday shopping legislation, then we'd have something to get our teeth into. Instead, what this government's doing is saying, "This House, if it doesn't deal with all the legislation by June 25, could well end up having to sit on into the summer."

Mr Elston: They didn't say what year.

Mr Cousens: Oh, what year; that's true too. But here is a government that took three weeks before it started this spring session. I don't know what they were doing, but they were out there causing the House not to sit, then the House leader of the New Democrats just recently put on the record that we in the opposition parties are not cooperating.

We don't have the key bills for this Legislature yet. We have not debated the budget. We have not had an opportunity to assess the budget in any meaningful way at all. We've had two or three speakers and nothing further. What a breach of tradition. If there's anyone who wants to break traditions, it's the New Democrats. You know how to wreck things. You're doing a great job of that, and I'm sick of it. I want to put on the record that this is wrong, the way you're running this Legislature.

[Applause]

Mr Cousens: Thank you, my two friends. I don't have that many; you can tell.

It's wrong. Here we are. We're into the month of June; it's June 2. This government is going to table any day now -- I'm told that the Minister of Labour is imminently going to deliver his new labour legislation, and they want to have that labour legislation passed for second reading by June 25 so it can go out for public hearings during the summer, yet we don't have that bill before us right now. We're dealing instead with this bill, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.

What I started to say is that this government is on the record as saying that if we don't pass a bill we haven't even seen yet -- it hasn't even been tabled yet -- if we don't pass it in time, then the House leader of the New Democrats has said, "Well, we might change the rules, or we could use closure, or we might sit on into the summer."

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Where did he state that?

Mr Cousens: It was quoted in one of our Toronto papers. I don't talk to him except when I go to House leaders' meetings, but it's close enough to where it's coming from. He doesn't deal with us one on one in any meaningful way. You end up having to read the local papers to find out what you people are up to, because you don't make announcements in the Legislature; you make them in surreptitious, quiet, under-the-cover ways rather than publicly and openly here. So when we're dealing with confidence and freedom of information, one thing you guys are bad at is making things public and sharing it honestly and openly so this system can work.

My point is that here is a government that was so strong on many points of view when it was sitting in opposition. Now they're in power and they're working away, and here we are in an afternoon working on Bill 136. I have to tell you, no one's going to remember this bill. I hope it does help someone. I am going to support it, but come on. Where are your priorities, Mr Chairman of Management Board? What can you do to really clean up this bill to make it possible for people to access that information more easily and more economically? I present that in the form of a question before we proceed further with part I of that bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Sutherland's amendment?

Mr Elston: My intervention here will be fairly brief. I have here very close beside me the black book, which contains in it all the estimates of the Board of Internal Economy, a meeting for which I am now slightly late, but I know my associates who are sitting around the table are watching us here in the House and will forgive me for being just two or three more minutes before I go and visit with them and vote for the estimates of not only the House but this entire operation; and that should give all the people who are watching this debate pause for consideration.

I wasn't going to speak very long, but I detected a certain lack of understanding of the freedom of information bill and the series of things that are happening with that bill on the part of my colleague from Markham, a man I know we were predetermined to have to sit here and listen to, because he, like I, is a noble Presbyterian, and having to suffer and having to suffer in sort of a predetermined manner is part of a doctrine which he understands much better than I. But we shouldn't have to suffer through suggestions that for the people dealing with the freedom of information act, an act for which I had some responsibility in another incarnation, it isn't working well.

1610

I think that as we go further with these bills we will make them work much better. In fact, quite contrary to what the honourable member says, maybe we will forget about Bill 136, and I hope we do forget about Bill 136, because that will mean it does function quite well. It's designed to let people have an eye on industry, and in this thing, when we talk about industry we really are talking about having access to viewing what is happening in a particularly important area of concern environmentally. To be quite honest, if we don't hear about this again, it will mean that we've done the right thing.

I understand from our critic, who is unable to be with us today -- but we're proceeding anyway -- that we likewise are going to be supporting this. I understand there was a short intervention of time because of questions raised by the member for Carleton, which I understand have been found to be interesting but largely overcomeable, if that's the right word, and now we can go ahead and deal with the legislation.

But I want to say to the member for Markham that even as we speak, there are various understandings of the act and how it is working in its application to governments at the provincial level; also as we speak, there are implementations being done of the freedom of information act at the municipal level. I appreciate that while he may not think it's going quickly enough, that work is being done even as we speak. It would be unfair to leave the impression with the public in general that there is no concern about how this piece of legislation is working.

The fact that the honourable member has to pay to have access to a whole series of reports and documents is a question that has concerned not only this administration but our administration. I do believe it also was of some concern to the member for Carleton, because he sat on this policy development as an issue from about 1982, if I recall correctly from my early days, until 1985, when a marvellous event occurred and May 2 found the Liberal administration being able to take responsibility for this.

The fact is that you had to develop a policy which allowed the government to charge back some of the actual costs of providing information; that it had to be fair, there had to be an opportunity for people to have access, but the government could not always be asked to pay the full cost of allowing the staff time and the actual photocopies of materials to be charged against its own budgets. It's an expensive procedure.

Now, one other point. While he may be upset with that, I think there's been a balance struck. But I can expect that the current administration, like any other in preparation for its ultimate return to opposition -- which we all have to prepare for, some more quickly than others -- will want to have a fair and reasonable policy with respect to charging. I think there is that, because you can always take some other option in terms of reviewing material. You could choose perhaps to be physically present to review some of the things under the auspices of ministries, and you can always try to work out some kind of understanding on how you might reduce the actual cost of accessing that information.

There will always be difficulties. It will always cost somebody too much at some stage. In any event, it will always cost the taxpayers the full bill because there is, as everybody knows, an exemption for the first few hours of work being done to find information.

Now on to a second concern, which is that there is some information that the honourable member received in his freedom of information packet that had some deletions, and there were some severable materials in his documents that he was very much concerned about. While this bill is short-formed "freedom of information," there is also a part that says "protection of privacy." Particularly in this legislation, where you have hazardous materials being discussed, you also have to be aware that there are issues of proprietary interests held by companies that manufacture certain things. The release of information about their products would in fact violate some of the secret nature of the work that goes into formulating products. As a result, you have to have some balance.

I was surprised to hear the honourable gentleman and member for Markham indicating that he wanted to have full access, full range to all the information and that he was throwing out the window the sense that there was any importance at all to privacy.

While I could go on much longer, I think it behooves all of us, before we start making these sort of political speeches -- because somebody who has spoken to us recently doesn't like everything that's going on with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- to present a balanced picture. There will be constituents -- and I know constituents in the honourable member's riding, for instance -- for whom the protection of privacy is absolutely essential if they are to guard the proprietary interests in their product. So while we may leave the impression as speakers from time to time that there are very simple messages to be left, with respect, that is not the case in the situation with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I haven't spoken very much about the bill itself, other than to say I'm pleased the minister took time, when the matter of a potential problem was raised by the member for Carleton, to review the issue and satisfy himself -- and that's all we can ask him, his staff and others -- that the problem was surmountable. I'm pleased that he actually suspended the activities so study could be had and that, upon his assurances that the problem has been dealt with or is dealt with adequately enough, we should be prepared now to proceed without languishing too long on long speeches about how badly we feel undone by the slow process of legislation or somebody going to the Globe and Mail complaining about legislation going through the House.

I suspect the member for Markham will want to withdraw his comments about this being a very unimportant bill, because the fact that it is short, the fact that it deals with a very precise piece of public policy, in some minds may mean that it is not important. But anything that surrounds freedom of information in a democracy, in my view, is essential and has a higher priority, perhaps, than some of the other speeches made by us.

Our administration was supportive. The opposition party, New Democrats, were supportive from the time I started in this business in 1981, at the same time as the honourable member for Markham and the then majority Conservatives -- how many people did they have in office in those days? I shudder to think it. How much more appropriate the numbers are now. It seems to me rational -- but even the Tories under the auspices of the member for Carleton, as he now is -- and I think he then was -- were supportive of freedom of information. The fact that we don't have perfect legislation is but a passing comment on the imperfection of humanity, and I don't think we should preoccupy ourselves too much with penalizing the current administration for the human failings of all of us since we have all had a very supportive hand in putting together the freedom of information package.

That being the case, I think we should probably move with dispatch out of committee of the whole. We will be voting with the administration on this particular matter. I thank you for allowing my intervention, and again I thank the minister and his staff for allowing us to review a problem before we had the argument in here and perhaps caused wrong impressions to be left with the public.

With those few words, I am now going off to see if there is a budget to be approved for the legislative operations of the province.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Sutherland's amendment to Bill 136? The honourable member for Essex-Kent.

1620

Mr Hayes: Very briefly, I'm going to say a few words in regard to this amendment. When the workplace hazardous materials information system legislation first came out, of course, there were a lot of concerns about trade secrets. At that time I was a health and safety representative with the CAW and Ford Motor Co. The legislation really came out for the protection of the worker, but some of the chemical companies were really afraid that if they disclosed too much information, someone would be able to use that material and undercut them or they were afraid, I guess, that the workers would start their own chemical companies. It made us chuckle to hear that.

The most important thing about that legislation is that it gave workers the right and the proper information to know just what they were working with. It also gave workers information as to how it would affect them if they came in contact with any of these materials.

One of the big problems we have in health and safety in the workplace is that you have certain products or substances where, if there was only one particular ingredient, you would be able to set the threshold limit on exposure, but some chemicals may have three, four, five or six different ingredients and each one of those ingredients may be a carcinogen. You really don't know.

I think this particular piece of legislation works twofold: It protects the trade secret for the employer but at the same time it allows the proper people to receive the information to allow them to do their job, to protect the worker. I think that's very important. It spells out very clearly that if the someone in the health and safety agency or the Ministry of Labour inspector had this information, the person couldn't just go out and disclose this to anyone. I think that is very important.

I know the member speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party over there thought maybe we were going to try to prolong things, but I really believe this is a piece of legislation that all three parties should support, and I think I've seen that indication. I would like to thank them in advance for their support for this piece of legislation.

Mr Cousens: As we proceed with discussion on this bill -- and indeed, we will not be all that long. When the member for Bruce made a few comments, he seemed rather defensive of the involvement the Liberal Party had in the preparation of this bill. Certainly when it went through it had the support of all three parties of this House, but we're in a position now when we could be making some other improvements to the bill.

The kind of thing I referred to is really an instance where this bill becomes prohibitively expensive for people who in the line of doing their work require information, and in order to get that information it is necessary to sign a personal cheque to obtain the information they want. I would specifically like to ask the minister to comment on that part of the way in which the overall bill works and to see if you've got any suggestions and recommendations.

We've got to protect the privacy of certain people, there's no doubt about that, but there's nothing free about the freedom of information bill. It is a very expensive bill, and it's especially expensive when you come along and spend $288 and what you get really isn't useful at all.

If I'd had some better feeling as to what was in there, of course I could have gotten a real kernel of goodness that would come back and cause the Minister of the Environment to wake up, but I haven't been able to do that for the last two years anyway.

If there is any way in which this minister could comment briefly, at least before we leave this afternoon, because I'd like to stay on this subject for a moment or two, I'd be most grateful: what action you plan to take, whether you're totally satisfied with the way it's working right now, and if there are any plans or proposals you have to address the kind of personal concern I have, as a member who finds it very difficult to do my job, especially with the limitations you're putting around me.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm pleased to make a couple of comments in, hopefully, concluding this aspect of dealing with this bill. Let me just first address the concerns raised by the member for Markham, because he talked, both in the question he put now and in the comments he made earlier, about a number of concerns he has with the freedom of information legislation as a whole.

He will know no doubt that we've had one of our legislative committees look at the whole bill and a number of aspects of the bill. I believe that included in that were also some of the issues he raised with respect to the fee structure and some of the other aspects. I noted with great interest and appreciation that the committee's report from the three parties represented in this Legislature was unanimous. I indicated to members of the committee when I spoke to them at the committee that I was looking forward to their advice with respect to how the legislation could be improved, and I was pleased to see that the recommendations indeed came unanimously.

I can say to the member for Markham and to members of the Legislature that we will be looking and are looking now at the suggestions made by the committee and will be looking very seriously at the changes proposed. Not just because they raised a number of important issues, which they did, but particularly also in a situation like that where they managed to reach agreement at the committee level, I think it's incumbent upon the government to therefore take those considerations into serious account. We are doing that. So I hope that, likely for the fall session, we will have amendments we can propose to the legislation which will reflect the kinds of things the committee has looked at. I hope that within that we may be able to address some of the concerns the member for Markham has expressed again this afternoon.

I wanted to say also that I appreciated the comments made by the member for Bruce. I'm sure that as he goes off to join the board of management he will likely be of as much help there as he was here. I think that'll be quite useful. I appreciated the comments he made, particularly with respect to the process we followed. It seemed to me that when the member for Carleton raised some concerns about this legislation it was incumbent upon me to take a very serious look at those concerns and to ask that the legislation and the amendment not proceed until we'd had an opportunity to assure him and the House that the changes envisioned by this Legislation are not only useful ones but ones that I think protect the public interest that he was concerned about and that I know other members of this House have talked about in the earlier discussions that took place here.

Given that this is also the first piece of legislation I've taken through, let me also just express my appreciation to my parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, who took forward the earlier portion of the committee of the whole and the presentation of this legislation.

Let me just say that I think, as has been stated, that the essence of the amendment before us is really one that tries to balance the needs for worker safety with the interests of manufacturers for trade secrets and the protection of those trade secrets. I think there is ample provision in my mind, and certainly from the advice that we received from the officials, to continue to ensure that the interests of the public with respect to safety and the use of hazardous materials in the workplace continue to be protected. What we are talking about with respect to the provisions of non-disclosure really has to do with not being able to disclose the particular ingredients that relate, as I say, to trade secrets.

But there's nothing in what we are presenting that in any way prevents disclosure to the public of a hazardous situation or a potential problem. Indeed, those provisions continue to exist in the legislation. In that sense the public interest, both for the workers on a particular site and in a general way, continues to be protected. In that sense I am satisfied that the amendment we're presenting is a useful one that will allow us access to the details we need and the officials in the Ministry of Labour to continue to do the work they need to do to protect the workers of the this province.

1630

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Sutherland's amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Sutherland's amendment to Bill 136 carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall section 2 of Bill 136 carry as amended?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I do have an amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Grandmaître moves that subsection 40.1(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(c) any person or body if the officer or employee of the ministry determines that the information is of such a nature that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to be in the interest of the health and welfare of the public."

Mr Grandmaître: I think it's self-explanatory. We hope the government members will support the amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Debate?

Mr Cousens: I think it's a very simple, straightforward amendment to the bill which would then really mean that there are going to be exceptions allowed when it is in the public interest. I believe that is the intent of the amendment. I guess the problem we have is that we get locked into so many ways of just closing all the doors and options. If you don't have some of those options there, the law becomes more of a burden to society, which I believe it has become anyway at this point. We need certain basic laws, we need to have guidelines, but we also need to have opportunities for some common sense to take place.

For a change, I think we're seeing a little common sense from the Liberals. I can support that whenever it's seen, even if it is the exception to the rule.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Grandmaître's amendment? The honourable Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Mr Silipo: With regret, I have to indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment. I think the problem that it essentially poses is that it negates to some extent the amendment we've just adopted. In fact, it causes additional problems in that with this amendment we would not get access to the information we require from the federal authorities.

I can just say again, as I indicated earlier, and to bring in a further point, that in our view it isn't necessary to have this amendment in there because the hazardous properties of the product are already disclosed as a result if there are problems that are encountered. In that sense, while I understand and appreciate the intent that's put forward in the amendment, we can't support it for those reasons, because it would negate the point of the amendment that we've presented. It would mean that our officials in the Ministry of Labour would not have access to the kinds of details of the ingredients, to the trade secrets, that they need to have. As I say, we feel the public interest continues to be protected by the legislation that exists. This particular amendment isn't necessary in our view.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Grandmaître's amendment?

Mr Grandmaître: I appreciate the minister's comments, but this amendment really is simply to point out that exceptions are allowed. I would like to get his explanation as to how it negates the previous amendment.

Hon Mr Silipo: I said in part it negates the previous amendment. I don't think technically it does, and I don't want to in any way be suggesting that it does. The problem, as I've indicated, is twofold.

First, if this amendment were to pass, the federal Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission would not accept it in the sense that it would not provide us with information we need to be able to deal with the specifics of knowing the details of the ingredients of any potentially hazardous products. The problem is that the negation part I was referring to before would allow, under certain circumstances, a disclosure of trade secrets. That's the potential problem. That may not be the intent, but that's the way it would be able to be read. The problem that causes comes back to our inability therefore, as a result of this amendment, to be able to get the information we need.

We think the point that I believe is behind the amendment, that is, the protection of the public in terms of the disclosure to the public, still is possible and it can happen in terms of the fact that the hazardous properties of the product -- that is, if there's a product that's deemed to be hazardous in some way, that hazard is brought to the attention and can be brought to the attention of the workers and the public where that's necessary, but that can be done without disclosing the trade secret, which this amendment would have the potential for allowing to happen, that is, a disclosure of the actual ingredients of the patent and the product. That's the problem with the amendment in the end.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Grandmaître's motion? Is is the pleasure of the House that Mr Grandmaître's motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Miss Martel, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr Silipo moved third reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy / Loi modifiant certaines lois concernant l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Silipo, do you have any comments?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): I'm pleased to introduce for third reading An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, Bill 136. It provides that a non-disclosure section of the Occupational Health and Safety Act overrides the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This bill, as amended, will allow the Ministry of Labour to receive confidential trade secret information about hazardous products from the federal Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments on the minister's comments? If not, are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Silipo moves third reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

1640

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Mr Charlton moved third reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): It's a pleasure for me to introduce Bill 118 for third reading. Bill 118, as you know, is An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. In doing so, I'd like to thank the members of the standing committee on resources development for their patient and I think very thorough examination of this piece of legislation. I'd also like to thank all those people across Ontario who made it their business to attend the committee's hearings on Bill 118, because this piece of legislation has in fact profited from their input.

Quite clearly, Bill 118 is the product of a wide-ranging process of consultation that's gone on across this province. In formulating these amendments to the Power Corporation Act, the government promised it would listen to advice, and it has listened. We listened to those who worried that the government's directive power over Ontario Hydro would turn the utility into a vehicle for social and economic programs. That was a line that I think was promoted quite widely by some members of the opposition. That was never the intention, but we changed the bill to eliminate any possible misunderstanding in that respect.

While I'm on that point, I might take a moment to remind members of both opposition parties that in the 1986 select committee on energy report the members of both of the opposition parties, along with the then opposition members representing this party on that select committee, unanimously supported a series of recommendations on the control and accountability of Ontario Hydro, recommendations which are reflected very clearly in this piece of legislation. I think it is important that members search out and learn from the discussions that have gone on in the past when they consider pieces of legislation like Bill 118.

The legislation makes it clear that directives to Hydro will only apply to matters within the utility's mandate as set out in the Power Corporation Act. In fact, Bill 118 brings new clarity to the relationship between Hydro and the government. Under the Power Corporation Act, government direction to Hydro has been subject to a highly complex set of procedures and to a very difficult set of approvals. In order to get anything done at all, past governments have provided direction informally, frequently behind closed doors, with Hydro management. That must, and will, change. The directive power conferred upon the government in Bill 118 creates an open, visible channel for communicating the government's wishes and needs to Hydro. There will be no more closed doors in terms of the government's direction and influence on the operations of Ontario Hydro.

We also heard from a number of people across Ontario who objected to a clause that would have shifted authority for setting the salary of Hydro's chair from cabinet to the Hydro board. Once again, we've listened and we've altered the bill so that authority will remain with the cabinet.

Bill 118 contains changes that will help government to keep an important promise made in the speech from the throne in November 1990. That promise is a new energy direction for the province which, more than ever before, will emphasize the need to control the demand for energy and to reduce our traditional dependence on continually increasing supply. It's important, as we go through the kind of economic restructuring and regrowth that will have to happen over the course of the years ahead, that we do it in a way that is quite different from the past, in a way that will allow Ontario industry and Ontario business to be competitive in Ontario, Canada and the international markets.

There are a number of other important initiatives that Bill 118 will allow the government to proceed with. Reducing the environmental impact of energy production and consumption is also a key component of our new energy directions. At the same time, we realize an equally compelling obligation to ensure that Ontario continues to have a reliable supply of energy at reasonable prices.

The legislation being presented here today for third reading, whether the members across the way like that or not, will make Hydro more responsive to the concerns and priorities of the people of this province, strengthen Hydro's relationship with the government of Ontario, make the relationship between Hydro and the government an open, visible relationship and assert Hydro's responsibility for the effective management of its day-to-day operations. It will also equip Hydro with the means to pursue lower-cost solutions to meeting the province's electrical needs as we move into a much altered and important future.

I'm sure the members opposite will have some comments they wish to make on third reading of this bill, so I'll turn the floor over to them now. Thank you very much, and I commend this piece of legislation to you across the way and to your predecessors who worked with us to bring this piece of legislation forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

1650

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to begin, as well as the minister, by extending my thanks to my fellow members on the committee, who devoted a great deal of time and energy to this issue, and also to extend my thank you to the communities we visited for the gracious hospitality they extended, and by thanking as well the groups who appeared before us.

I was elected in the last election and have not had the opportunity to travel this province in the way I did during the course of the committee travels. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it's a grand province. I guess we went as far north as Sioux Lookout and as far south as Windsor. It was a most enjoyable experience, notwithstanding the 4 o'clock in the morning early calls.

The minister made reference to the consultation, and I want to take him up on that point at the outset. The first thing I should make reference to is the degree of consultation that went on before the bill was introduced. We heard from one particular group in connection with that very matter, and that was from Jack MacDonald, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000. This is what he had to say when he appeared before the committee in January:

"CUPE 1000, along with other labour groups, were simply notified of the proposed amendments after all the decisions were made.

"Consultation means involvement in decision-making before the agenda is set. It is clear that, by definition, consultation did not take place with Local 1000 concerning the amendments to the Power Corporation Act. For the record, it makes no difference if other parties are equally ignored. Different behaviour was expected from this government and in this instance it was not forthcoming."

That gives us an idea of the kind of consultation that took place before, but what about the consultation that took place during the course of the committee's work? I think we should as well take a look at that.

It was interesting that when the committee was up in Timmins during the course of the hearings, when myself, my party's Energy critic and the Energy critic for the third party were present in Timmins, at that time Ontario Hydro filed an update to its demand-supply plan, and in that demand-supply plan it made it very clear that in amending its targets for conservation between now and the year 2014 it was going to rely heavily on fuel switching. It make it explicit that such a reliance was in fact premised upon this bill becoming law.

I want to quote from a letter that was put out by Marc Eliesen, chair of the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. He said, "However, more opportunities will come from higher efficiency standards from government and changes in law that will allow Hydro to promote alternative forms of energy where the customer can benefit and where electricity is not the most appropriate form of energy."

"Changes in law that will" -- I think "will" is the operative word here. It's not "may" or "perhaps." It's clearly indicated that notwithstanding that this committee was touring the province and consulting the people of Ontario as to how they felt about Bill 118, this government planned to go ahead -- and Hydro understood that very clearly -- with fuel switching. Again, that gives us some idea of the extent of the sincerity of the consultation that was taking place.

With respect to Bill 118 itself, we've been told that it's being put forward to improve Hydro's accountability to the people of Ontario. There's been talk about doing things through the front door whereas in the past, when the government gave directions to Hydro, they were done through some kind of back door. We've also been told that Bill 118 will improve the transparency or the openness with which the dealings between the government and Hydro will take place.

We've also been told one thing essentially, that Bill 118 is going to help us to control Hydro's rates, which are of course skyrocketing. Rates went up this year on average 11.8%. The proposed average rate increase for 1993 is 8.6%, and it's important to keep in mind that inflation at the present time is something under 2%. The chairman of Ontario Hydro has told us that rates will go up during the course of the next three years by 44%.

I will speak further on the rates matter in a moment, but right now I want to talk a little bit about Hydro. This government is attempting of course to wrestle with Hydro. That has been a historical struggle, I guess, in the more recent history of this Legislature. The problems associated with Ontario Hydro are fairly significant and somewhat numerous.

In the past Hydro has been referred to as a monolith, a runaway train, a Goliath and an impregnable fortress, and the problems associated with it have ranged from the matter of rates -- I guess the problems that are connected with the corporation having some 30,000 employees who are paid on average $65,000. It has $43 billion in assets. Its annual revenue exceeds $7 billion. It has a debt of some $35 billion, a very significant debt. It has 3.5 million customers.

It has been said that it's the largest construction company in Canada, possibly North America. It controls some of the most sophisticated technology available at the present time, the nuclear technology. It has a monopoly and thus it is sheltered from the benefits which normally accrue from competition, but there have been some sound policy reasons in the past for that.

It has been accused of having an affinity for megaprojects and, more recently, we have learned that its staff has the worst productivity ratio in North America. Hydro's revenue per employee, which is a common measure of productivity, was $178,000 in 1990. That's the latest year for which that is available and is the result of information filed recently with the Ontario Energy Board -- $178,000 per employee.

The next worst major utility listed was Duke Power, and that has a $222,000 revenue per employee, and the average of the 12 utilities with which it was compared in North America was $375,000 per employee. So our people are earning $178,000 best -- I'm sorry, the average is $375,000 and the very best was $593,000.

I want to come back to the issue of rates for a moment. The issue of Ontario Hydro and the rates it charges is a very significant problem because it's connected, of course, with -- utility rates being charged by Hydro are something that virtually everyone in the province pays for either directly or indirectly. You can't buy a chocolate bar and not pay for some component of the cost which is attributable to electricity.

Energy Probe, a group which follows these matters very closely, has told us recently that Ontario Hydro rates are going to soon exceed the rates being charged in the United States, according to a study which they recently completed.

I want to quote from a press release of theirs dated January 7, 1992. It says:

"In 1985, the average US household paid $74.92 a month for electricity, almost twice the $38.81 a Toronto household paid for the same amount of power. On January 1, 1992, that enormous gap had shrunk to under $8 a month. While the American's average bill is $81.18, only $6.26 more than in 1985, a Torontonian consuming the identical amount of power will be paying $73.92. By January 1, 1993, the gap will have become a negligible 66 cents and by January 1, 1994, the Americans will have a $7 a month advantage, paying $92.18 to our $99.86."

The Financial Times of Canada had an article -- it appears to be March 27, 1992 -- and the title of the article was "Ontario Hydro: The Worst Is Yet To Come." Interestingly enough, in the article they quote Mitch Rothman, the chief economist for Ontario Hydro:

"'In the past five years electricity prices in Ontario have gone from tipping the scales in favour of locating in Ontario to tipping the scales against locating in Ontario,' he concedes. Rothman explains: 'You can cut a better deal for electricity for particular plant locations in many jurisdictions in the US such as in Kentucky or Tennessee. It's one of the reasons General Motors put its Saturn plant in Tennessee.'"

It goes on to provide as follows as well:

"Officially, Ontario Hydro insists there will be no doubling of prices in this decade, but Rothman, the utility's own chief number cruncher, doubts that. 'The current internal forecast is not a doubling of prices in the 1990s,' he says, 'but my own guess is that in nominal terms it wouldn't surprise me.'"

So we have confirmation from, I guess, the highest sources internal to Ontario Hydro that our rates are going to continue to rise and rise rather substantially.

1700

We heard, of course, from a number of presenters during the course of our travels and while the committee sat here in Toronto, and there have been a number of solutions put forward to help us tame the Hydro beast. One proposal was that we simply give the Ontario Energy Board more teeth. The Ontario Energy Board has been known as the chihuahua of watchdogs. In fact, it has very little power in terms of controlling rates. It provides us with recommendations, but at the end of the day it's Hydro which really has the ultimate authority in setting those rates.

It's also been proposed by others, including my friends in the third party, that what we should be doing with Ontario Hydro is bringing the influence of the private sector, the private market, the competition, to bear. Those people espousing that particular approach argue that there is only one force of sufficient strength to bring Hydro to heel, and that is the force of the marketplace.

Others from whom we've heard have said that what we should be doing is giving more power to the public utility commissions and those elected commissioners who at present, although they represent 75% of Ontario's hydro ratepayers, only make up about 12% of the representation on the board of directors. I guess there's something to be said for that, for giving perhaps more authority to those people who are elected to hold public office. There's nothing that quite concentrates the mind like having to contend with an electorate and be accountable to it.

Of course, the other proposal was that we should give more power over Ontario Hydro to the Legislature. I think that approach also has a great deal to commend itself to us, but we have to ensure that if we're going to proceed in that fashion we have in place some mechanism to prevent the kind of abuse that can come from a government doing something for taxpayers at the expense of ratepayers. I think one of the underlying deficiencies that becomes glaring as you proceed through a reading of the bill is that it fails to make the distinction between taxpayers and ratepayers, which is of vital importance.

I talked earlier about some of the problems associated with Hydro, but we shouldn't get carried away with this. It's become, I think, almost fashionable today to criticize Hydro. It has played a tremendous role in the history of this province. The contribution to our quality of life is of course outstanding, and we simply cannot imagine life in this province today without electricity.

I can recall the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who is also the Energy critic for the third party, telling me something one time during the course of our committee hearings. It was a story which I found very insightful and which helped us to understand the role Hydro has played. With his consent I'll tell it again.

On Christmas Eve in 1948, my colleague found himself, as an employee of Ontario Hydro, in a small Ontario town. His purpose in being there was to assist in bringing a hydro line into that town, a town which had never been supplied with electricity prior to that time.

Now, the local folk were obviously in a very excited state, and they had, in anticipation of the electricity coming through, gone out and purchased a set of Christmas lights. You can just imagine the sense of wonder on the faces of the townsfolk, young and old alike, when the switch was thrown and the coloured lights lit up. That was obviously a very good thing. Hydro has done all kinds of good things during the course of the history of this province. As I think you know, it's so easy to lose sight of that.

They've helped us over time to light our farmhouses, to heat our barns, to run our factories, to heat our homes, to run our life-sustaining medical equipment and much, much more. But society is changing, and so are our demands for Ontario Hydro. Hydro is not without some fault in failing to keep up with our expectations for leadership in energy conservation, but neither are we without fault. I think what's critical for us to remember is that we are Hydro and Hydro is us. Those 30,000 Ontarians who work for Ontario Hydro are members of our population, and they haven't been pumped out of some infernal nether region to wreak havoc on the province. It reminds me of what Pogo was quoted as saying: "I have seen the enemy and he is us."

It's only been very recently in our history that the concepts of conservation and environmentalism have become firmly embedded in the public consciousness. Hydro has perhaps been slower than the rest of us -- not "perhaps"; it has definitely been slower than the rest of us to catch on to these trends, but that's because it's large, it's bureaucratic, it lacks the flexibility, the sensitivity to adapt quickly to change. But by and large the employees of Hydro, I feel, are anxious to keep up with Ontario's changing needs in conservation.

Perhaps the real question we should be asking ourselves is, can Hydro in its present form do what Ontario needs? I wouldn't mind if the government were to conduct some kind of special review of Hydro to determine if today Hydro in its present form really can continue to serve Ontario's needs in the best way possible.

Hydro presents a tremendous challenge to the government, and it's my opinion that the government does not meet that challenge through Bill 118. Instead of the ratepayers suffering from Hydro now, the Hydro tiger, they're going to be made to suffer from a tiger we can perhaps refer to as being tamed by government but as acting under the directions of the government. Whether we are mauled by a tiger that's wild or mauled by a tiger that's tame and acting under the instructions of its master makes no difference to the ratepayers, because a mauling is a mauling is a mauling.

I want to look at some of the specifics of the bill now. One of the first things the bill does is that it changes the number of directors. It proposes that we increase that number from 14 to 18 and we add to that the deputy minister. I have no objections to adding the deputy minister; I think he'll make an excellent link, a conduit between the minister and a board of directors.

You know, it's become rather fashionable of late to add to various boards and agencies an ever-increasing number of people in order to ensure that we bring to bear the life experience of different groups representing different sectors in society. By and large that is a good thing and I agree with that. But it has its limitations, and keeping in mind my earlier description of Ontario Hydro and the complexities that are inherent in that kind of operation, I think what we have to do is not be so much looking to increasing the numbers of people who are going to sit on the board as ensuring that those people who sit on there are people who possess the necessary qualities to gain an understanding of the issues and then hopefully to address those issues in a helpful manner.

I told this story in committee, but I think it bears repetition. I can recall that one time when I was articling, my principal, the lawyer who was in charge of me, asked that I go down to the holding cells and meet with a potential client who wished to retain him. My boss told me to go down there and speak with him in French because my boss did not speak French and he was concerned that he would not be able to properly represent this particular person because of the language barrier. So I went down and discussed this with the person who was in the holding cell and I explained to him that my boss felt uncomfortable with taking him on as a client, and I can recall what he said, and this was all in French: "I don't care if your boss is a man; I don't care if your boss is a woman. I don't care if your boss speaks French or speaks English. I believe your boss is a good lawyer and that's why I want him."

Like all analogies, that has limitations, but I think it has some application to the kind of people we have to look to if we're going to ensure that we have qualified people sitting on the board of directors.

1710

During the course of our committee hearings there was no empirical evidence advanced to show that by putting four more people on the board we're going to make Hydro run more efficiently, more effectively. The public utility commissioners, as I indicated earlier, have put forward the idea that, as they represent 75% of Hydro's ratepayers and occupy only 12% of the seats on the board, perhaps they should be given a greater number of seats. The members of the third party put that forward by way of an amendment, and that was defeated.

One of the things I noticed as well, when we were discussing this subject in committee, was that it was not unusual to see that those who were in favour of adding four more seats were often looking for representation for members of their own group.

The next issue I want to deal with is the amendment to the Power Corporation Act as made through Bill 118, where the bill makes the chair the chief executive officer of Hydro. We understand that originally the president was the chief executive officer. The president was elected by the board of directors. The chairman has been a political appointment and now the bill proposes that the chair be made the chief executive officer. So if we make the chair a political appointment, by virtue of that the chief executive officer is also a political appointment.

There are a couple of problems with doing that, both worth mentioning. First of all, when we make the chair the CEO, the CEO will likely change as governments change. If you were to go to any large corporation -- if you were able to find a corporation as large as Ontario Hydro -- and tell the shareholders that the chief executive officer is going to change every time the government changes, I think you would have a great deal of difficulty making the shareholders believe that was a good thing for the corporation. From speaking with directors on the board, I have been told that it takes two to three years to gain an understanding of what is truly going on inside Ontario Hydro. Governments can change shortly, within three or four years. As a result, the experience gained during the course of their limited tenure will all be for naught.

The other aspect of this business of making the chair the chief executive officer is one of conflict, which we're going to have pay some attention to. I guess the question is, how can we expect the chief executive officer to object to a policy that would cause harm to the interests of the ratepayers? On the one hand you have this individual acting in the capacity of chair, a political appointee representing the government, receiving instructions of a policy nature, and on the other hand this same person is attempting to run the corporation and protect the interests of ratepayers. It is simply impossible to have to deal with that kind of a conflict. The best way for us to deal with it, of course, is to avoid it and to ensure that it simply cannot arise. Again, it points out that the government is having difficulty, to my mind, understanding the distinction between ratepayers and taxpayers and the different obligations owed to each group.

One of the more controversial aspects of Bill 118 has to do with policy directives. Originally, as the minister indicated a few moments ago, there was no restriction placed on the kinds of directions and the kinds of orders the government could issue to Ontario Hydro. You've got to wonder about the kind of thinking or lack of thinking that went into that, where Hydro could be told to do absolutely anything. In any event, they backed away on that and they've made the proper amendment.

I guess the question that remains is, can we take comfort in that? Can the ratepayers now take comfort knowing that the government will never tell Hydro to do anything that would have Hydro act outside its traditional, historical mandate of providing power to the people at cost? My answer to that question is no and it's no because of the track record this government has already established for itself, in dealing through a policy directive, with what it did at Elliot Lake.

I have a copy of the regulation made under the Power Corporation Act dealing with Elliot Lake. Essentially what this required Ontario Hydro to do was spend $225 million when the board of directors had indicated this was not in the best interests of the corporation. In Elliot Lake, Hydro was told to pay $160 million more for uranium, and that was $160 million higher than the market price. In addition, it was to kick in $65 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund, and those funds were to be used for job training, for reducing the debt of the municipality and for diversifying the economies of the regions.

Those, of course, were all good causes. There's no doubt whatsoever in the minds of anyone in this House, to my knowledge, that the good people of Elliot Lake needed help in a bad way. But those causes had nothing to do with power at cost, not by any objective standard.

When this government says, "Don't worry, folks; we agree to be bound by Hydro's mandate of providing power at cost," that offers no comfort to the ratepayers. What we have been saying in the past, just to be perfectly clear in this, is that government, not Ontario Hydro, through the general revenues, owes an obligation to the people of Elliot Lake.

If I look at the order in council that was signed by the then Minister of Energy, Jenny Carter, it provides, interestingly enough, that Ontario Hydro's participation in this program, as it was called, is in the best interests of the people of Ontario "and is deemed to be in the best interests of the corporation."

A deeming provision is a very powerful provision, because it makes something that may not be so, so. Whether something is in fact in the best interests of the corporation is another question. This says it's going to be in the best interests of the corporation.

The third provision in that same order in council dated June 6, 1991, provides that "the officers and directors of the corporation who exercise their discretion in compliance with the policies set out herein will be saved, harmless and indemnified, jointly and severally, from and against any and all liability incurred or arising from such exercise."

What the government is telling the board of directors here is: "Look, we know you're having problems with this and you've told us you do not feel this is in the best interests of the ratepayers, the people to whom in law you are accountable. We're going to make a deal with you. We're going to let you off the hook. As long as you go along with this and you follow our policy in this regard, you will not be able to be sued. We're going to give you a special shelter under which you will have protection from legal liability."

It's also significant that at the time the statement was made in this House it was not made by the Minister of Energy, even though it dealt with spending Hydro revenues and not general revenues. It was made by the Minister of Northern Development. I think that's somewhat symbolic of how this government is confusing. It's not distinguishing between Hydro money and general revenues. It's not distinguishing between obligations owed to taxpayers and obligations owed to ratepayers.

The question is, how will this government use its directive power? I think the facts have been established here. In this case, it issued a directive to Hydro. This directive was not discussed in caucus; it was not debated in the House. When this government talks about openness and transparency and going through the front door, this gives you an idea of what we're looking at in practice, what we can expect in the future through Bill 118. There was no such discussion in caucus and there was no such debate in this House.

1720

Hydro's board of directors felt it was wrong and they demanded protection from lawsuits, as the deal was not in the interests of ratepayers. The $225 million that was spent by Ontario Hydro should rightly have been borne by taxpayers and added to the deficit, not borne by the ratepayers.

There was some discussion during the course of the committee as to the spin the government was putting on the Elliot Lake deal, that it was saving Ontario Hydro $1.4 billion. The facts are that there were no savings made at all. There was a net cost of $225 million. Ontario Hydro had the option to get out of the contract in 1993. The government told Ontario Hydro: "No, you're not getting out of it. What you're going to do is go ahead and extend it for three years. You're going to spend an additional sum for uranium, even though you'll be paying much more than you would on the open market, and you're going to be paying $65 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund."

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Does Mike Brown agree with this?

Mr McGuinty: Absolutely.

This works out to more than $400,000 for each of the 595 jobs saved, even though these jobs will only last three more years. Again, to make it perfectly clear, in case anyone in Elliot Lake should misunderstand my meaning, those people are entitled to some assistance, but not from Hydro's ratepayers; from taxpayers and through general revenue.

This has a ripple effect when Hydro spends that kind of money and it ends up reflected in the rates that are being paid by its ratepayers. Inco, in its submission to the standing committee on January 15, told us that the recent Elliot Lake and Spruce Falls transactions were going to cost them, by their estimation, $700,000 in 1992. They have an electricity bill of $74 million a year, but that's an additional $700,000 which they rightfully should not have had to pay.

Just to bring it down to a more basic level, I'm going to paint a little picture of the pensioner living on a fixed income. That pensioner is being crushed under the burden of property taxes, which are going up to the point where that pensioner may very well have to sell his home. That pensioner pays income tax and pays for utilities, including hydro, but when you pay your income tax, that's a function of your income. If you're making a little, then as a general rule you're paying a little income tax.

If a government decides for political purposes to use Hydro to meet what is properly a government expense, and it doesn't want to use general revenues because there's a recession, and it's concerned with the political fallout of raising the deficit, what I want as a pensioner is for my Hydro directors, the only people who are accountable to me in law, to stop this from happening. What Bill 118 does is remove my safety valve, so to speak. It says that my directors will stay out of the hot seat as long as they do as they're told by the government. The bill exempts them from liability whenever they follow government policy. So what we have is an exception to the general rule that he who pays the piper calls the tune, because in these circumstances, the piper is Hydro and the ratepayers are paying but the person calling the tune is the government. That is simply not fair.

The other aspect which got a lot of play during the course of the hearings dealt with the energy conservation programs that Hydro will now be permitted to undertake. In fact, what Hydro is going to be allowed to do here is to extend its mandate effectively beyond the conservation of electricity to the conservation of all forms of energy. The question, of course, that begs itself is, why aren't we letting the gas utilities make inroads in the conserving of natural gas, and the same with the people in the fuel oil business?

In any event, this government sees fit to use Ontario Hydro as a tool to promote a conservation program for all forms of energy. I think that's a mistake. There should be a more comprehensive energy policy from the government dealing with other forms of energy. But in any event, that's what Bill 118 tells us.

Fuel substitution: Bill 118 is going to allow Ontario Hydro to promote fuel substitution. It's going to allow Ontario Hydro to subsidize someone to switch from electricity to another form of energy to heat his home or building. The obvious alternative sources are oil, gas and wood. There's no doubt whatsoever; we heard from all kinds of experts who appeared before the committee that environmentally it is a good thing. It is simply a very inefficient use of electricity to heat a home. We received comparisons as to the yearly carbon dioxide emissions and the emissions for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. As I was saying, there's no doubt whatsoever that it's simply far better for the environment that we heat with oil, gas or wood.

What concerns me, though, is that although the minister has been telling us there's an environmental advantage, the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day there's going to be a cost disadvantage in terms of Hydro rates generally. I want to say this very directly: The solution this government is putting forward as its response to the problem of rising rates is conservation. I want to make it perfectly clear that, initially at least, when we conserve our rates are going to go up. Yes, in Ontario in 1992, when we are struggling in our province and the people are struggling under the weight of a recession, the government's policy of conservation is going to cause rates to go up, at least initially.

What bothers me is that the minister has never made this fact clear to the people of Ontario. I want to quote from a media package that was put out in Thunder Bay on the first day of the committee hearings outside Toronto. On page 5, in response to the question, "What are the benefits of enabling Hydro to encourage fuel substitution?" the answer is that there are three consequences, essentially. I'm paraphrasing here. First of all, it's going to allow us to lower our heating costs for customers; second, it's going to provide us with increased environmental protection and, third, it's going to defer the need for large central generating facilities, thereby ensuring considerable savings for Ontario Hydro.

But what the minister left out, and what is of tremendous importance to people desperately trying to cope with the recession, is that there's a fourth consequence to conservation -- and the form of that of course is fuel substitution -- and that is that initially the rates are going to go up.

Just today in the Ottawa Citizen there was an article which indicated that Ontario Hydro has just filed documents with the Ontario Energy Board at the hearing that is just beginning that will be considering the rates for 1993, telling us that the utility's conservation plans are going to cost $1.9 billion over the next four years. That's $1.9 billion even after electricity savings in those years are taken into account.

1730

The article provides as follows:

"According to the Hydro forecast, the conservation programs are expected to cost $325 million this year, $400 million in 1993, $525 million in 1994 and $675 million in 1995. 'The figures reflect the cost of the conservation programs minus the savings in the particular year,' Russell said." "Russell" refers to Ian Russell, the director of Hydro's corporate financial planning.

I think what has been brought to light, and only in the last few days through filings with the Ontario Energy Board by Ontario Hydro, is that the conservation policies of this government are going to cause rates to increase. The public utility commissions have been telling us this for some time. It only makes sense that if you cut back on sales, if you lower your sales, you've still got to pay for your fixed costs.

The point I'm trying to make is that the government has an obligation to ensure that it tells the people of this province that, as a result of its response to increasing rates, it's promoting conservation, and the initial effect of conservation will be to cause those rates to increase even further.

One of the interesting things we learned during the course of the committee hearings was that there have been a number of industries in the province which have improved their overall energy efficiency by increasing the amount of electricity they use. That would seem initially not to make sense, but I guess what I'm leading to here is that one of the problems with Bill 118 is that it focuses on electricity use only instead of overall energy use.

As I read it, Bill 118 would not permit Ontario Hydro to promote switching me, for instance, to a more efficient means of using electricity. We know that the most efficient means we can use to heat a home is through a ground-source heat pump, but what we're going to be doing through Bill 118 is paying people to switch, for instance, to natural gas and not providing them with the option to go with the most energy-efficient means available to them.

We heard from Quebec and Ontario Paper Co, which appeared before the committee on January 30, 1992. They confirmed this. They said, "As a result, the Thorold mill was rebuilt in the early 1980s, resulting in the mill now being one of the lowest-cost mills in Canada, but our electrical consumption per tonne increased 30% after the rebuild." Electricity costs have gone up, notwithstanding that overall energy efficiency has gone up as well.

We also heard from ICI Canada, formerly known as C-I-L, which appeared before us in Guelph on January 29. There they indicated that the ICI Courtright ammonia plant had reduced its energy usage per tonne of ammonia by over 30% in the last decade by replacing an old-technology plant by a new-technology plant.

They said that the new plant was listed in a recent study commissioned by Energy, Mines and Resources Canada as the number one most efficient ammonia plant in Canada. In fact, this plant is the most efficient in North America. But the new Courtright plant achieved high energy efficiency by reducing its natural gas needs and increasing its electricity consumption several times over in comparison to the older, less energy-efficient plant. A deficiency within Bill 118, as I see it, is that it fails to recognize that energy efficiency can in fact be brought about through increasing use of electricity.

One of the things we learned from meeting with so many groups is that there is a sense of scepticism in the public, I think generally -- scepticism relating to governments and Hydro telling us how to heat our homes. You may recall, Mr Speaker, there was a time -- I'm not old enough to remember this -- when people heated their homes by oil. The prices at that time of course began to rise dramatically and the federal government decided in its wisdom that it was going to implement an off-oil program and it was going to provide subsidies to people to switch off of oil, because of course at the time electricity was cheaper and there was a tremendous concern with the reliability of supply of fuel oil.

It's interesting to note that when they put that program in place, they decided it was to be funded from general revenues; it would be funded by all taxpayers and not by a select groups of taxpayers, ie, ratepayers. They went ahead with that program to switch off oil, and at the time Ontario Hydro had its campaign of "Living better electrically." So people were drawn from oil to electricity.

People who have been on the electricity are now understanding that the cost of electricity is going up. They've learned as well that it's better for the environment that they switch back to oil or gas. So now Hydro will be offering to subsidize me to switch back to oil or gas. We started off on oil or gas, got paid to go to electricity, and now we're going to get paid to go back to gas or oil, and of course there are no guarantees being offered with respect to the prices of natural gas in the future, or oil for that matter, or with respect to supply.

Hydro has a lengthy history of having difficulty in predicting the future with respect to costs and demand. I guess the sentiment I'm trying to convey, which was conveyed to the committee over the course of our hearings, is that there is a great deal of mistrust with respect to the government and Hydro telling people that they should be switching from one source of fuel for heating to another.

We have to look of course at the equity issue involved in this. The costs for switching people off hydro are going to be borne by all ratepayers and not solely by those ratepayers who are making the switch. As I indicated earlier, the net result is going to be that rates are going to go up, at least initially, for all ratepayers.

The equity aspect of it is this: Many people do not have access to natural gas, if I can focus on natural gas for a moment as our alternative fuel; they will not, notwithstanding the full implications of this bill, have access to natural gas. Many people do not want to switch to natural gas -- we heard from some people who are not comfortable with having natural gas in the home -- and many people have already switched to natural gas and they will not have the benefit of the subsidies which may come about as a result of Bill 118.

Although all those people will have to pay others to obtain the benefits of the reduced heating costs, they're going to see their rates go up accordingly. The question of course is, is this fair? Is is fair that people living in Sioux Lookout, for instance, who do not have access to natural gas and who told us that the cost of oil up there is about the same as the cost of electricity, are going to see their rates increase in order to subsidize me, for instance, in Ottawa to switch from electricity to heat my home to oil or gas? I say it is not fair. The bill has not addressed that inequity.

One of the questions that was raised in fact by some of the public utility commissions is, why are we not looking to those who stand to immediately and undoubtedly benefit from the switching? Why aren't we having those people foot the bill? By that I mean of course the natural gas utilities and the oil companies.

1740

It's rather ironic that under the law as it stands today the Ontario Energy Board requires that, if a national gas utility is to extend its pipeline into a particular community, a feasibility test be met. What that means essentially is that it cannot saddle its existing rate base with a cost of that expansion; that expansion must be absorbed by the new ratepayers.

What Bill 118 does is skirt around this, and it effectively provides that electricity ratepayers are going to subsidize this expansion so that what it could not do under the law and the regulations which the Ontario Energy Board oversees it's now going to be able to do through Bill 118.

We also heard from several groups that made the argument to the effect that market forces are working. The natural gas utilities told us over and over again that people are switching to natural gas in ever-increasing numbers because of the obvious economic advantages, and of course as well because of the fact that people are gaining a better understanding of the fact that it is simply better for the environment to heat with natural gas than it is to heat with electricity.

I'm just going to quote from Consumers' Gas, which appeared before the committee on January 16. We heard from the regional sales manager of the eastern region, Consumers' Gas in Ottawa. He said the following: "Since 1973, approximately 60,000 customer additions have been captured in eastern Ontario from other fuels." He goes on to provide, "Our rate of growth in eastern Ontario is now approximately 8,000 customers per year," who are making the switch without benefit of subsidies. He goes on to say: "...and recently, there has been a noticeable increase in the capture rate and the requests for conversion from electricity to natural gas. Much of this may be attributed to the difference between natural gas and electricity prices and, in particular, some concern by electricity customers about the prospects of double-digit rate hikes over the next few years to pay for existing generating facilities."

Ottawa Hydro appeared before us in January 1992. Mr Carl Kropp, the general manager and chief engineer of Ottawa Hydro, told us: "Market forces are already acting strongly in favour of fuel substitution without incentives. In 1991, Ottawa Hydro, in its rental program, lost 1,354 hot water tanks to gas, up from 788 conversions" in 1990.

My calculations show that for the conversion of space heating from electricity to gas, the customer will benefit after four years without incentives. Already consumers are reacting and making the change, so why does the minister leave the impression that Ontario Hydro must pay incentives? Another question: Why should Hydro pay the incentives? The gas utility or the oil company will also see a benefit to increase sales. Should the gas utility or the oil company not pay all or at least some of the incentives if in fact incentive is to be given? Is this the reason that the government could more easily control Hydro? These are all very good questions and they are not properly addressed in Bill 118.

I think there is perhaps something more subtle that Bill 118 is telling the population, and we should not lose sight of that or fail to be sensitive to it, and that is, what kind of opinion do we hold of our population if we assume that, notwithstanding the economic advantages and the environmental advantages to switching off of electricity, we don't believe our population will respond to that and we're going to have to pay them to do it?

In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. People have been switching from electricity to other forms of fuel to heat in ever-increasing numbers. Notwithstanding that, this bill is saying, "No, we are going to proceed with a program by which it is going to pay people to continue to do what they're already doing." The question arises as to just how cost-effective that kind of --

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please resume your seat. I just want to remind the House that we had unanimous consent to have a vote on third reading on Bill 121. Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

1753

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

The House divided on Ms Gigantes's motion for third reading of Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation, which was agreed to on the following vote.

Ayes -- 60

Allen, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin;

Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 34

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Sola, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

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

The House adjourned at 1758.